Blount-Ayala
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T
John Briggs: More than 2 centuries ago [sic], the fashion was to guillotine monarchs.
Renia: Not in England.
BA: It was certainly more humane of the French than what took place among
Medieval Brits: the disemboweling and quartering and sticking of heads on sticks!
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9 ... QtBI7ntAcJ
Renia: Not in England.
BA: It was certainly more humane of the French than what took place among
Medieval Brits: the disemboweling and quartering and sticking of heads on sticks!
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9 ... QtBI7ntAcJ
-
Gjest
Re: Lacy of Pontefract
On Nov 21, 8:54 am, paul bulkley <designecono...@yahoo.com> wrote:
No, it isn't. It may be reasonable to hypothesize this, but to assume
it assumes a false duality - that he was son of one or the other,
without considering that he may have been son of neither.
taf
With reference to Gilbert Lacy of Cromwell Botham,
Wightman claimed that he was the illigitimate son of
Henry 11 Lacy.
Records advise that Gilbert Lacy married Agnes de
Owram 1193-1202. With that understanding, it is
probable that he was born 20-25 years earlier i.e.
1170-1180.
Thus he could have been the son of Robert 11 Lacy.
However if Gilbert was born say 1160-1170, it is
reasonable to assume that Henry 11 Lacy was his
father.
No, it isn't. It may be reasonable to hypothesize this, but to assume
it assumes a false duality - that he was son of one or the other,
without considering that he may have been son of neither.
taf
-
Gjest
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
On Nov 20, 6:31 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I had hoped we would have moved beyond such ridiculousness. Ira B.
Peck was in no position to know the facts of the creation of the
document. He _asserted_ what you describe, but (since you love those
courtroom analogies) it was hearsay, and inadmissible.
This is Bill again intentionally distorting the position of others.
And this Is Bill again falsely reporting the provenance. (Here is a
clue - the British Museum Library itself has not been in existence
"since the 17th century")
taf
In fact, Ira B. Peck in his book on Joseph Peck
clearly STATED that the brother of Nicholas Peck, a 16thC-17thC gent in England
*commissioned* the Peck Pedigree, paid hard money and spent considerable time
on its behalf.
I had hoped we would have moved beyond such ridiculousness. Ira B.
Peck was in no position to know the facts of the creation of the
document. He _asserted_ what you describe, but (since you love those
courtroom analogies) it was hearsay, and inadmissible.
So, for anyone to impugn Ira B. Peck, Somerby, and Nicholas Peck
and the College of Heralds is beyond the pale: such naysayers MUST PROVE their
assertions with no basis in fact, which defy all logic that 19thC persons created
a 17thC document
This is Bill again intentionally distorting the position of others.
which has been in the BML since the 17thC.
And this Is Bill again falsely reporting the provenance. (Here is a
clue - the British Museum Library itself has not been in existence
"since the 17th century")
taf
-
Gjest
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
On Nov 21, 8:44 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
You are older than you appear.
Waxing poetic again? Royalists and redcoats are not the same thing.
Anyhow, the colonial militia rarely stood their ground for long,
throughout the entire war. They were at their best in what would now
be called guerrilla or sneak attacks, and when placed in support of
Continentals - Morgan even designed a successful battle strategy on
the fact that militia were known to run. But this is just another
distraction.
"We" know nothing of the sort. I would be guessing, but I would say
it probably has more to do with your blatant distortions of what has
been said, and applying false motivations to those with whom you
disagree. Like the above. In attributing to her false reasons for
believing you not to be a gentleman, you demonstrated an actual
reason.
taf
Renia: You are no gentleman, at least not here. You are certainly no scholar.
BA: Sheesh. Over here in America, we remember: the Boston Tea Party
You are older than you appear.
and
why most royalists took off for the Canadian hills in their tacky Red jackets with
Brassy buttons when my Ancestors Peck in the Colonial Militia stood their ground!
Waxing poetic again? Royalists and redcoats are not the same thing.
Anyhow, the colonial militia rarely stood their ground for long,
throughout the entire war. They were at their best in what would now
be called guerrilla or sneak attacks, and when placed in support of
Continentals - Morgan even designed a successful battle strategy on
the fact that militia were known to run. But this is just another
distraction.
So: we all know HM the Renia is just saying that because I would not curtsy to
her skirt.
"We" know nothing of the sort. I would be guessing, but I would say
it probably has more to do with your blatant distortions of what has
been said, and applying false motivations to those with whom you
disagree. Like the above. In attributing to her false reasons for
believing you not to be a gentleman, you demonstrated an actual
reason.
taf
-
Gjest
Re: Happy Holidays to All
You can't get away that easily. What the heck is "Stir-Up Sunday" ?
Sounds a bit rowdy.
Will Johnson
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)
Sounds a bit rowdy.
Will Johnson
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)
-
Gjest
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
In a message dated 11/21/2007 8:30:15 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
fchal@charm.net writes:
If its provenance is 17th Century, which I don't believe, how can it
be a medieval document? We know Somerby is innocent of creating the
document.
I dispute that we know this.
Will
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)
fchal@charm.net writes:
If its provenance is 17th Century, which I don't believe, how can it
be a medieval document? We know Somerby is innocent of creating the
document.
I dispute that we know this.
Will
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)
-
Gjest
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
On Nov 21, 1:07 pm, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
Quite right Will. It was a poor choice of words on my part. I think
there's a good chance that the document might be a forgery. At this
point based on Nat Taylor's estimate of the accession of the
manuscript, I am willing to give Somerby a pass as the author for now.
Only a physical examination of the MS will resolve this.
See Nat's post
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.gene ... ode=source
Fred Chalfant
In a message dated 11/21/2007 8:30:15 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
fc...@charm.net writes:
If its provenance is 17th Century, which I don't believe, how can it
be a medieval document? We know Somerby is innocent of creating the
document.
I dispute that we know this.
Will
Quite right Will. It was a poor choice of words on my part. I think
there's a good chance that the document might be a forgery. At this
point based on Nat Taylor's estimate of the accession of the
manuscript, I am willing to give Somerby a pass as the author for now.
Only a physical examination of the MS will resolve this.
See Nat's post
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.gene ... ode=source
Fred Chalfant
-
Christopher Ingham
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
On Nov 21, 1:07 pm, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
It has been established already that the veracity of the reported
Beck pedigree remains in question. Mr. Arnold's loud (in the
manner of a P. T. Barnum or Wizard of Oz) and irrationally
contentious persistence that this is otherwise does not merit
further responses from you and others. Take a lesson from
the Nathaniel Taylor playbook and ignore him.
Christopher Ingham
In a message dated 11/21/2007 8:30:15 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
fc...@charm.net writes:
If its provenance is 17th Century, which I don't believe, how can it
be a medieval document? We know Somerby is innocent of creating the
document.
I dispute that we know this.
It has been established already that the veracity of the reported
Beck pedigree remains in question. Mr. Arnold's loud (in the
manner of a P. T. Barnum or Wizard of Oz) and irrationally
contentious persistence that this is otherwise does not merit
further responses from you and others. Take a lesson from
the Nathaniel Taylor playbook and ignore him.
Christopher Ingham
-
Gjest
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
On Nov 21, 10:07 am, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
It does seem rather likely, based on Nat's report that it is bound and
numbered within a collection that was cataloged into the collection
before Somerby's time. (I guess he could have written it on blank
pages within the bound manuscript.)
Nat wrote:
: "However, there is a separate sort of work in print, uniquely for
the
period 1783 to 1835: a subject index, published in 1849, listing
individual items found in those manuscripts, often down to the page
level. This work is:
: _Index to the Additional Manuscripts with those of the Egerton
Collection preserved in the British Museum and acquired in the years
1783-1835_ (London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1849).
: Under the heading "Peck, family of" it lists "Pedigree: [Add. MS]
5524,
ff. 152, 152b, 153, 153b, and 154." and "Arms: [Add. MS] 5524, folio
221."
: While it is not a catalogue as such, and so does not contain a
volume-level description or provenance, the numbering suggests that
Add.
MS 5524 was probably acquired around 1790 to 1810, and that the Peck
pedigree was in it before 1849. Browsing the index also gives clues
about the nature of the MS. On the same page of the index there are
references to --
: Peche, family of (co. Suff.)
: Philipott, family of
: This suggests that the MS volume as a whole is an authentic
antiquarian
MS of at least the 18th century--perhaps specializing in Suffolk
pedigrees--acquired by the BL at the end of the 18th century. Google
Books returns a few references to this MS showing that it seems to
focus
on Norfolk and Suffolk families. This information rules out the
scenario that the pedigree exists in a set of papers donated in the
mid-19th century, and makes it nearly impossible that the whole thing
was concocted by Somerby. "
For Bill's benefit, he also wrote:
"The handwriting still raises some flags. Is it really from 1620?
The
whole thing may an eighteenth-century copy of an earlier pedigree
(attestation and all): there are many 18th-c genealogical MSS floating
around the British library, for example the prolific copywork of
Edward
Hasted, the Kentish antiquary, in the Harley MSS. On this pedigree,
the
first two heralds' names (Henry St. George, Richmond Herald, and Henry
Chitting, Chester Herald) look like they're written in the same hand,
so
the whole could be a later copy of a pedigree with their attestation
copied as well. . . ."
Bill, what part of this are you equating with Nat demonstrating:
"(1) the BML Peck Pedigree *provenance* is 17thC. "
taf
In a message dated 11/21/2007 8:30:15 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
fc...@charm.net writes:
If its provenance is 17th Century, which I don't believe, how can it
be a medieval document? We know Somerby is innocent of creating the
document.
I dispute that we know this.
It does seem rather likely, based on Nat's report that it is bound and
numbered within a collection that was cataloged into the collection
before Somerby's time. (I guess he could have written it on blank
pages within the bound manuscript.)
Nat wrote:
: "However, there is a separate sort of work in print, uniquely for
the
period 1783 to 1835: a subject index, published in 1849, listing
individual items found in those manuscripts, often down to the page
level. This work is:
: _Index to the Additional Manuscripts with those of the Egerton
Collection preserved in the British Museum and acquired in the years
1783-1835_ (London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1849).
: Under the heading "Peck, family of" it lists "Pedigree: [Add. MS]
5524,
ff. 152, 152b, 153, 153b, and 154." and "Arms: [Add. MS] 5524, folio
221."
: While it is not a catalogue as such, and so does not contain a
volume-level description or provenance, the numbering suggests that
Add.
MS 5524 was probably acquired around 1790 to 1810, and that the Peck
pedigree was in it before 1849. Browsing the index also gives clues
about the nature of the MS. On the same page of the index there are
references to --
: Peche, family of (co. Suff.)
: Philipott, family of
: This suggests that the MS volume as a whole is an authentic
antiquarian
MS of at least the 18th century--perhaps specializing in Suffolk
pedigrees--acquired by the BL at the end of the 18th century. Google
Books returns a few references to this MS showing that it seems to
focus
on Norfolk and Suffolk families. This information rules out the
scenario that the pedigree exists in a set of papers donated in the
mid-19th century, and makes it nearly impossible that the whole thing
was concocted by Somerby. "
For Bill's benefit, he also wrote:
"The handwriting still raises some flags. Is it really from 1620?
The
whole thing may an eighteenth-century copy of an earlier pedigree
(attestation and all): there are many 18th-c genealogical MSS floating
around the British library, for example the prolific copywork of
Edward
Hasted, the Kentish antiquary, in the Harley MSS. On this pedigree,
the
first two heralds' names (Henry St. George, Richmond Herald, and Henry
Chitting, Chester Herald) look like they're written in the same hand,
so
the whole could be a later copy of a pedigree with their attestation
copied as well. . . ."
Bill, what part of this are you equating with Nat demonstrating:
"(1) the BML Peck Pedigree *provenance* is 17thC. "
taf
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
fchal: If its provenance is 17th Century, which I don't believe, how can it
be a medieval document? We know Somerby is innocent of creating the
document. What we don't know is whether he knowingly passed along a
forgery. Nothing like a forger to spot another forger. The salient points
about Robert Peck of Beccles were also discussed in 2003 at the Peck Family
List:
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/pe ... 1055651042
BA: So you do not believe the BML Peck pedigree provenance is 17thC.
Not surprised: you probably do not believe Napoleon was crowned Emperor
in 1603, either. What, pray tell, is your belief based on? Fact or fiction?
How do *you* suddenly know that Somerby is *innocent*? Is that also
your belief? There is no Robert Peck "of Beccles" if you have been paying
attention to gen-medieval, Oct-Nov, 2007. There is a Robert Peck,
the Elder. Do you mean him? And isn't 2003 slightly out of date with
gen-medieval archives, Oct-Nov, 2007? I guess you are new to this
discussion? Check out the archives.
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/GEN-MEDIEVAL/
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9 ... QtBI7ntAcJ
be a medieval document? We know Somerby is innocent of creating the
document. What we don't know is whether he knowingly passed along a
forgery. Nothing like a forger to spot another forger. The salient points
about Robert Peck of Beccles were also discussed in 2003 at the Peck Family
List:
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/pe ... 1055651042
BA: So you do not believe the BML Peck pedigree provenance is 17thC.
Not surprised: you probably do not believe Napoleon was crowned Emperor
in 1603, either. What, pray tell, is your belief based on? Fact or fiction?
How do *you* suddenly know that Somerby is *innocent*? Is that also
your belief? There is no Robert Peck "of Beccles" if you have been paying
attention to gen-medieval, Oct-Nov, 2007. There is a Robert Peck,
the Elder. Do you mean him? And isn't 2003 slightly out of date with
gen-medieval archives, Oct-Nov, 2007? I guess you are new to this
discussion? Check out the archives.
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/GEN-MEDIEVAL/
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9 ... QtBI7ntAcJ
-
Gjest
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
On Nov 21, 12:49 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
A lack of belief in which he is not alone.
???????
More word games.
He lived in Beccles. That makes him Robert Peck "of Beccles", (which
has no bearing on where he was born).
An odd comment to make from someone who has wasted so many electrons
supporting 19th century material.
"Someone once said something relevant to this discussion. See Google
Books for the details." If you have a point to make just make it,
rather than sending someone to a haystack without even a description
of the needle you pretend they will find there.
taf
fchal: If its provenance is 17th Century, which I don't believe, how can it
be a medieval document? We know Somerby is innocent of creating the
document. What we don't know is whether he knowingly passed along a
forgery. Nothing like a forger to spot another forger. The salient points
about Robert Peck of Beccles were also discussed in 2003 at the Peck Family
List:
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/pe ... 1055651042
BA: So you do not believe the BML Peck pedigree provenance is 17thC.
A lack of belief in which he is not alone.
Not surprised: you probably do not believe Napoleon was crowned Emperor
in 1603, either.
???????
There is no Robert Peck "of Beccles"
More word games.
if you have been paying
attention to gen-medieval, Oct-Nov, 2007. There is a Robert Peck,
the Elder.
He lived in Beccles. That makes him Robert Peck "of Beccles", (which
has no bearing on where he was born).
Do you mean him? And isn't 2003 slightly out of date with
gen-medieval archives, Oct-Nov, 2007?
An odd comment to make from someone who has wasted so many electrons
supporting 19th century material.
I guess you are new to this
discussion? Check out the archives.
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/GEN-MEDIEVAL/
"Someone once said something relevant to this discussion. See Google
Books for the details." If you have a point to make just make it,
rather than sending someone to a haystack without even a description
of the needle you pretend they will find there.
taf
-
Renia
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
Bill Arnold wrote:
Then check the archives going back a decade or more. I'm afraid, Mr
Arnold, you are making a complete fool of yourself. Or perhaps you were
a fool to begin with. Rather sad.
BA: In fact, Ira B. Peck in his book on Joseph Peck
clearly STATED that the brother of Nicholas Peck, a 16thC-17thC gent in England
*commissioned* the Peck Pedigree, paid hard money and spent considerable time
on its behalf.
TAF: I had hoped we would have moved beyond such ridiculousness. Ira B.
Peck was in no position to know the facts of the creation of the
document. He _asserted_ what you describe, but (since you love those
courtroom analogies) it was hearsay, and inadmissible.
BA: You now impugn Ira. B. Peck and you are in *NO* position to know the facts
of the thousands of documents he had at his disposal in the mid 19thC. How
can you know he did not have access to English documents? You do *NOT* and
it is *you* who is making an assertion of fact without basis. And someone called
*you* a scientist? How charming! Your posts demonstrate otherwise. This is TAF
intentionally distorting the position of others. Isn't that one of *your* pet retorts?
Have you *ever* had an original thought in your life? Have you ever written anything
of substance about the Peck pedigree? I have yet to read one single post of substance
by you.
Then check the archives going back a decade or more. I'm afraid, Mr
Arnold, you are making a complete fool of yourself. Or perhaps you were
a fool to begin with. Rather sad.
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
Will: And P.S. *IF* Douglas is going to produce another work on the
"descents from Charlemagne" or some such thing, the liklihood that he
would include the preposterous Peck pedigree, most known *solely* from
the work of a known fraudster... is slim to none. So you're getting all worked
up over nothing.
BA: So on the one hand you diss me and you diss Douglas Richardson, and
then you demonstrate to us that you now *speak* for him? What a pompous
individual, you are, Monsieur! I revert to French, for obvious reasons! In
his *ACKNOWLEDGMENTS* Douglas Richardson thanks, among others:
John Ravilious, Gary Boyd Roberts, and Renia Simonds. Your name, Will
Johnson, is *conspicuously* absent, along with other *wilderbeasts* who
roam this gen-medieval list. And:
you also prove to Douglas Richardson for being a *spokesperson* for him,
that you have NOT read *PLANTAGENET ANCESTRY* by him, Royal Ancestry
Series, Genealogical pub. co., 2004, hdbd, page ix, *"Introduction," viz.:
"PUBLICATION PLAN: This book is the first in a series of volumes on the
ancestry of the American colonial immigrants who have English gentry, noble,
or royal ancestry. Succeeding volumes will present descents from the Magna
Carta Sureties of 1215, early feudal English barons, and Emperor Charlemagne."
Touche, Monsieur!
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
"descents from Charlemagne" or some such thing, the liklihood that he
would include the preposterous Peck pedigree, most known *solely* from
the work of a known fraudster... is slim to none. So you're getting all worked
up over nothing.
BA: So on the one hand you diss me and you diss Douglas Richardson, and
then you demonstrate to us that you now *speak* for him? What a pompous
individual, you are, Monsieur! I revert to French, for obvious reasons! In
his *ACKNOWLEDGMENTS* Douglas Richardson thanks, among others:
John Ravilious, Gary Boyd Roberts, and Renia Simonds. Your name, Will
Johnson, is *conspicuously* absent, along with other *wilderbeasts* who
roam this gen-medieval list. And:
you also prove to Douglas Richardson for being a *spokesperson* for him,
that you have NOT read *PLANTAGENET ANCESTRY* by him, Royal Ancestry
Series, Genealogical pub. co., 2004, hdbd, page ix, *"Introduction," viz.:
"PUBLICATION PLAN: This book is the first in a series of volumes on the
ancestry of the American colonial immigrants who have English gentry, noble,
or royal ancestry. Succeeding volumes will present descents from the Magna
Carta Sureties of 1215, early feudal English barons, and Emperor Charlemagne."
Touche, Monsieur!
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T
DEFINITELY...
Infra Dig...
Like saying "Phillie" or "Philly" for Philadelphia...
Or...
"Frisco" for San Francisco...
Further...
There's no apostrophe in PHOTOS.
DSH
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fi20dp$ufs$1@mouse.otenet.gr...
Infra Dig...
Like saying "Phillie" or "Philly" for Philadelphia...
Or...
"Frisco" for San Francisco...
Further...
There's no apostrophe in PHOTOS.
DSH
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fi20dp$ufs$1@mouse.otenet.gr...
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
PROGS for PROGRAMS.
Is this some more British Underclass Prole Pogueish Slang?
No, it's an abbreviation, rather like photos.
(only without the apostrophe)
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fi1enn$n45$1@mouse.otenet.gr...
Rubbish. I'm aware that local versions have their own progs and that some
progs are shown at different times. I've watched ITV for 50 years. I know
how it works.
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
BA: You now impugn Ira. B. Peck and you are in *NO* position to know the facts
of the thousands of documents he had at his disposal in the mid 19thC. How
can you know he did not have access to English documents? You do *NOT* and
it is *you* who is making an assertion of fact without basis. And someone called
*you* a scientist? How charming! Your posts demonstrate otherwise. This is TAF
intentionally distorting the position of others. Isn't that one of *your* pet retorts?
Have you *ever* had an original thought in your life? Have you ever written anything
of substance about the Peck pedigree? I have yet to read one single post of substance
by you[speaking of TAF].
Renia: Then check the archives going back a decade or more. I'm afraid, Mr
Arnold, you are making a complete fool of yourself. Or perhaps you were
a fool to begin with. Rather sad.
BA: TAF was wrong again, as you, Renia, are *no* lady. And I will not do your
homework for *you*! If you think it important for others to *know* the background
of TAF, educate us.
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9 ... QtBI7ntAcJ
of the thousands of documents he had at his disposal in the mid 19thC. How
can you know he did not have access to English documents? You do *NOT* and
it is *you* who is making an assertion of fact without basis. And someone called
*you* a scientist? How charming! Your posts demonstrate otherwise. This is TAF
intentionally distorting the position of others. Isn't that one of *your* pet retorts?
Have you *ever* had an original thought in your life? Have you ever written anything
of substance about the Peck pedigree? I have yet to read one single post of substance
by you[speaking of TAF].
Renia: Then check the archives going back a decade or more. I'm afraid, Mr
Arnold, you are making a complete fool of yourself. Or perhaps you were
a fool to begin with. Rather sad.
BA: TAF was wrong again, as you, Renia, are *no* lady. And I will not do your
homework for *you*! If you think it important for others to *know* the background
of TAF, educate us.
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9 ... QtBI7ntAcJ
-
Renia
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
Bill Arnold wrote:
What homework would that be, pray tell?
BA: You now impugn Ira. B. Peck and you are in *NO* position to know the facts
of the thousands of documents he had at his disposal in the mid 19thC. How
can you know he did not have access to English documents? You do *NOT* and
it is *you* who is making an assertion of fact without basis. And someone called
*you* a scientist? How charming! Your posts demonstrate otherwise. This is TAF
intentionally distorting the position of others. Isn't that one of *your* pet retorts?
Have you *ever* had an original thought in your life? Have you ever written anything
of substance about the Peck pedigree? I have yet to read one single post of substance
by you[speaking of TAF].
Renia: Then check the archives going back a decade or more. I'm afraid, Mr
Arnold, you are making a complete fool of yourself. Or perhaps you were
a fool to begin with. Rather sad.
BA: TAF was wrong again, as you, Renia, are *no* lady. And I will not do your
homework for *you*! If you think it important for others to *know* the background
of TAF, educate us.
What homework would that be, pray tell?
-
Gjest
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
On Nov 21, 1:01 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Not at all. I simply don't think he lived to be 250 years old, which
in no way speaks to his character.
Nifty attempt to confuse the issue, but it won't fly. I am making no
claim as to what documents he did or did not have before him.
However, I am in a decent position to state with absolute certainty
that Ira B. Peck did not witness the events surrounding the creation
of the pedigree, and therefor he is in no position to give reliable
testimony respecting this issue. He may have been passing on
information that he learned from others (although he provides no
citation to indicate this was the case) but if so, that is the very
act of passing on hearsay to which I referred.
It doesn't matter if he did or not. The personal testimony of a 19th
century man is not a good source for early 17th century events.
Not true. I have a perfect basis for concluding that he did not
witness 17th century events.
And now we add ad hominem to your gentlemanly style, do we?
I have in no way distorted a position by concluding with certainty
that Ira B. Peck had no personal knowledge of the events he was
relating, and therefor is not a reliable source for those events.
I am having one right now (perhaps not all that original), but I
suspect the limitations of human anatomy would prevent its
actualization.
We are right back to where we started, with you making the ludicrous
demand that the testimony of your sources be accepted as unqualified
fact, thereby begging the question of the authenticity of the descent.
taf
BA: In fact, Ira B. Peck in his book on Joseph Peck
clearly STATED that the brother of Nicholas Peck, a 16thC-17thC gent in England
*commissioned* the Peck Pedigree, paid hard money and spent considerable time
on its behalf.
TAF: I had hoped we would have moved beyond such ridiculousness. Ira B.
Peck was in no position to know the facts of the creation of the
document. He _asserted_ what you describe, but (since you love those
courtroom analogies) it was hearsay, and inadmissible.
BA: You now impugn Ira. B. Peck
Not at all. I simply don't think he lived to be 250 years old, which
in no way speaks to his character.
and you are in *NO* position to know the facts
of the thousands of documents he had at his disposal in the mid 19thC.
Nifty attempt to confuse the issue, but it won't fly. I am making no
claim as to what documents he did or did not have before him.
However, I am in a decent position to state with absolute certainty
that Ira B. Peck did not witness the events surrounding the creation
of the pedigree, and therefor he is in no position to give reliable
testimony respecting this issue. He may have been passing on
information that he learned from others (although he provides no
citation to indicate this was the case) but if so, that is the very
act of passing on hearsay to which I referred.
How can you know he did not have access to English documents?
It doesn't matter if he did or not. The personal testimony of a 19th
century man is not a good source for early 17th century events.
You do *NOT* and
it is *you* who is making an assertion of fact without basis.
Not true. I have a perfect basis for concluding that he did not
witness 17th century events.
And someone called
*you* a scientist? How charming! Your posts demonstrate otherwise.
And now we add ad hominem to your gentlemanly style, do we?
This is TAF
intentionally distorting the position of others.
I have in no way distorted a position by concluding with certainty
that Ira B. Peck had no personal knowledge of the events he was
relating, and therefor is not a reliable source for those events.
Isn't that one of *your* pet retorts?
Have you *ever* had an original thought in your life?
I am having one right now (perhaps not all that original), but I
suspect the limitations of human anatomy would prevent its
actualization.
We are right back to where we started, with you making the ludicrous
demand that the testimony of your sources be accepted as unqualified
fact, thereby begging the question of the authenticity of the descent.
taf
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
BA: So you do not believe the BML Peck pedigree provenance is 17thC.
TAF: A lack of belief in which he is not alone.
BA: Which means what? Copernicus was alone in believing Ptolemy was wrong,
and history has proven him correct.
BA: There is no Robert Peck "of Beccles"...
TAF: More word games.
TAF: "Someone once said something relevant to this discussion. See Google
Books for the details." If you have a point to make just make it,
rather than sending someone to a haystack without even a description
of the needle you pretend they will find there.
BA: more word games.
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
TAF: A lack of belief in which he is not alone.
BA: Which means what? Copernicus was alone in believing Ptolemy was wrong,
and history has proven him correct.
BA: There is no Robert Peck "of Beccles"...
TAF: More word games.
TAF: "Someone once said something relevant to this discussion. See Google
Books for the details." If you have a point to make just make it,
rather than sending someone to a haystack without even a description
of the needle you pretend they will find there.
BA: more word games.
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
-
Gjest
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
On Nov 21, 1:21 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Distortion again. I never said or even implied that Renia was a
lady. I do think her criticisms of your position have been perfectly
accurate, and that would be the case independent of her social
standing.
I don't think it is important. You are behaving foolishly, no matter
what my background is.
taf
BA: TAF was wrong again, as you, Renia, are *no* lady.
Distortion again. I never said or even implied that Renia was a
lady. I do think her criticisms of your position have been perfectly
accurate, and that would be the case independent of her social
standing.
And I will not do your
homework for *you*! If you think it important for others to *know* the background
of TAF, educate us.
I don't think it is important. You are behaving foolishly, no matter
what my background is.
taf
-
Gjest
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
On Nov 21, 1:27 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
And your specialty was the English language? Honestly, it was not that
ifficult of a sentence to parse. It means that he is not alone in
doubting a 17th century provenance for the Peck pedigree.
So what?
History has proven him more correct than Ptolemy, but still incorrect.
Have you looked up what epicircles are and why they are relevant to
this issue?
I should have recognized this earlier. It is a variant of the old
Galileo defense. "Galileo was right when everyone thought he was
wrong, and everyone thinks I am wrong, so therefor . . . . ."
taf
BA: So you do not believe the BML Peck pedigree provenance is 17thC.
TAF: A lack of belief in which he is not alone.
BA: Which means what?
And your specialty was the English language? Honestly, it was not that
ifficult of a sentence to parse. It means that he is not alone in
doubting a 17th century provenance for the Peck pedigree.
Copernicus was alone in believing Ptolemy was wrong,
So what?
and history has proven him correct.
History has proven him more correct than Ptolemy, but still incorrect.
Have you looked up what epicircles are and why they are relevant to
this issue?
I should have recognized this earlier. It is a variant of the old
Galileo defense. "Galileo was right when everyone thought he was
wrong, and everyone thinks I am wrong, so therefor . . . . ."
taf
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
BA: In fact, Ira B. Peck in his book on Joseph Peck
clearly STATED that the brother of Nicholas Peck, a 16thC-17thC gent in England
*commissioned* the Peck Pedigree, paid hard money and spent considerable time
on its behalf.
TAF: I had hoped we would have moved beyond such ridiculousness. Ira B.
Peck was in no position to know the facts of the creation of the
document. He _asserted_ what you describe, but (since you love those
courtroom analogies) it was hearsay, and inadmissible.
BA: You now impugn Ira. B. Peck
TAF: Not at all. I simply don't think he lived to be 250 years old, which
in no way speaks to his character.
BA: To quote an infamous gen-medievaler, "Hilarious!"
Now, who is playing word games? Thou Hypocrite!
BA: And you are in *NO* position to know the facts of the thousands of
documents he had at his disposal in the mid 19thC.
TAF: Nifty attempt to confuse the issue, but it won't fly. I am making no
claim as to what documents he did or did not have before him.
BA: Well, I am, and have: Ira. B. Peck stated in the intro to his book
on the descendants of Joseph Peck that he spent two decades corresponding
with people around the world and had thousands of such at his disposal.
That is his statement of FACT. As a case in point: I corresponded in the 1960s
with a lady in her 70s from Georgia who sent me, after a few years, a family
Bible of 1850 with marriages, deaths, and births. It now resides in the GA
archives.
TAF: However, I am in a decent position to state with absolute certainty
that Ira B. Peck did not witness the events surrounding the creation
of the pedigree, and therefor [sic] he is in no position to give reliable
testimony respecting this issue.
BA: Where does a *supposed* scientist come up with *drivel* like this?
Neither of us were around when Copernicus or Ptolemy stated their
statements of fact about the universe, but that does not preclude us
or anyone else from commenting about their respective works. And
you, Sir, are merely offering *opinion* or attesting to fact with no basis
in fact. My Bible analogy above belies your attestation.
TAF: He may have been passing on information that he learned from
others (although he provides no citation to indicate this was the case)
but if so, that is the very act of passing on hearsay to which I referred.
BA: I *know* what you were referring to: your biased agenda against
the authenticity of the Peck pedigree in the BML. You have *no* knowledge
of what caused Ira. B. Peck to state *emphatically* that his ancestor's
brother had spent his *own* money and time in commissioning the
pedigree, and Joseph Peck's brother's life spanned the end of the
16thC and beginning of the 17thC. Get some facts before you express
anymore unwarranted opinions. You have not even indicated you have
*read* Ira. B. Peck's book, now have you? Another case of someone
reviewing a movie without seeing it first. At worst: you are *alleging*
that Ira. B. Peck is a liar! Thou Hypocrite!
TAF: Not true. I have a perfect basis for concluding that he did not
witness 17th century events.
BA: Neither he nor I have *written* any such nonsense. That is more
of your word games. Thou Hypocrite!
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
clearly STATED that the brother of Nicholas Peck, a 16thC-17thC gent in England
*commissioned* the Peck Pedigree, paid hard money and spent considerable time
on its behalf.
TAF: I had hoped we would have moved beyond such ridiculousness. Ira B.
Peck was in no position to know the facts of the creation of the
document. He _asserted_ what you describe, but (since you love those
courtroom analogies) it was hearsay, and inadmissible.
BA: You now impugn Ira. B. Peck
TAF: Not at all. I simply don't think he lived to be 250 years old, which
in no way speaks to his character.
BA: To quote an infamous gen-medievaler, "Hilarious!"
Now, who is playing word games? Thou Hypocrite!
BA: And you are in *NO* position to know the facts of the thousands of
documents he had at his disposal in the mid 19thC.
TAF: Nifty attempt to confuse the issue, but it won't fly. I am making no
claim as to what documents he did or did not have before him.
BA: Well, I am, and have: Ira. B. Peck stated in the intro to his book
on the descendants of Joseph Peck that he spent two decades corresponding
with people around the world and had thousands of such at his disposal.
That is his statement of FACT. As a case in point: I corresponded in the 1960s
with a lady in her 70s from Georgia who sent me, after a few years, a family
Bible of 1850 with marriages, deaths, and births. It now resides in the GA
archives.
TAF: However, I am in a decent position to state with absolute certainty
that Ira B. Peck did not witness the events surrounding the creation
of the pedigree, and therefor [sic] he is in no position to give reliable
testimony respecting this issue.
BA: Where does a *supposed* scientist come up with *drivel* like this?
Neither of us were around when Copernicus or Ptolemy stated their
statements of fact about the universe, but that does not preclude us
or anyone else from commenting about their respective works. And
you, Sir, are merely offering *opinion* or attesting to fact with no basis
in fact. My Bible analogy above belies your attestation.
TAF: He may have been passing on information that he learned from
others (although he provides no citation to indicate this was the case)
but if so, that is the very act of passing on hearsay to which I referred.
BA: I *know* what you were referring to: your biased agenda against
the authenticity of the Peck pedigree in the BML. You have *no* knowledge
of what caused Ira. B. Peck to state *emphatically* that his ancestor's
brother had spent his *own* money and time in commissioning the
pedigree, and Joseph Peck's brother's life spanned the end of the
16thC and beginning of the 17thC. Get some facts before you express
anymore unwarranted opinions. You have not even indicated you have
*read* Ira. B. Peck's book, now have you? Another case of someone
reviewing a movie without seeing it first. At worst: you are *alleging*
that Ira. B. Peck is a liar! Thou Hypocrite!
TAF: Not true. I have a perfect basis for concluding that he did not
witness 17th century events.
BA: Neither he nor I have *written* any such nonsense. That is more
of your word games. Thou Hypocrite!
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
-
Ray O'Hara
Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T
his name isn't george.
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Charlemagne - and America
Dear Florent,
I had hoped to be able to say how many times Anne Couvent descends (in my
system) from Charlemagne, but as she is about 28 generations removed from
Charlemagne, the process is very slow and at times my system cannot cope
with questions that involve so many generations. A straight line is easy,
this is why I can say "about 28 generations".
Again many thanks for your reminder.
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "fcoache" <fcoache@sympatico.ca>
To: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>;
<GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 9:23 AM
Subject: RE: Charlemagne - and America
I had hoped to be able to say how many times Anne Couvent descends (in my
system) from Charlemagne, but as she is about 28 generations removed from
Charlemagne, the process is very slow and at times my system cannot cope
with questions that involve so many generations. A straight line is easy,
this is why I can say "about 28 generations".
Again many thanks for your reminder.
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "fcoache" <fcoache@sympatico.ca>
To: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>;
<GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 9:23 AM
Subject: RE: Charlemagne - and America
Hi Leo,
I think it is pretty safe to add Anne Couvent married to Philippe Amyot on
Dec. 31st 1626. Their son Mathieu Amyot/Amiot married to Marie Miville in
Quebec on Nov. 22nd.1650.
Mr. Denis Beauregard is one of the specialists for the royal gatheways for
the Quebec, Acadia areas and others.
Regards
Florent Coache
Napierville, Quebec
-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com]On Behalf Of Leo van de Pas
Sent: 21 novembre 2007 17:01
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Charlemagne - and America
It seems that Richardson has been serious a long time about a book
displaying Charlemagne as an ancestor of Americans.
I just hope that he will not restrict his work to descendants only in the
United States. He has a great oppertunity to create a work that
would/should
encompass the whole of North and South America.
So far, I found only two (descendants of Charlemagne) Gateway ancestors to
Brazil
Maria Pimentel Drummond
Francisco II de Sousa
So far, I found a few more to Canada
Catherine Baillon (of course)
Anne Angelique de Falaise de Gannes
Jeanne Le Marchand
Colin Drummond
Francoise de Meherenc de Montmirel
Michel Le Neuf, sieur du Herisson
Allan MacNab
Isabella MacDonald
Katherine Oliphant
Judge Peter Stewart
Alexander Macdonell
John MacDonald, of Glenadale
James Murray
Alexander Macdonell, of Aberchalder
John MacDonald of Garth
John Macdonell of Leek
and no doubt many more. If anyone can add to these, I gladly would like to
hear about them.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-
Gjest
Re: Happy Holidays to All
Dear John and Others,
If You have a holiday coming right up , I
hope it`s a very happy one. If You have no current holiday , I wish you joy,
good health and good luck every day of the year.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)
If You have a holiday coming right up , I
hope it`s a very happy one. If You have no current holiday , I wish you joy,
good health and good luck every day of the year.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
BA: Copernicus was alone in believing Ptolemy was wrong,
and history has proven him correct.
TAF: History has proven him more correct than Ptolemy, but still incorrect.
Have you looked up what epicircles are and why they are relevant to
this issue?
BA: Gadzooks! How lame in the brain art thou! Follow closely now,
Monsieu scientist! It is *epicycles* and they have absolutely *nothing*
to do with the discussion at hand. Ptolemy used *epicycles* as his
model to explain solar and planetary motion around the earth. Why?
Because Aristotle wanted to *Save the Appearance* of reality, which
had been the teachings of Plato. The appearance of reality is that
the sun goes around the earth. Copernicus ignored the model which
Ptolemy attempted to use to save the appearance of reality and instead
Copernicus came up with the brilliant idea that the *Sun Stands Still*
and all the planets go round it in motion. But that was *not* his explanation
of the appearance of the motion of the sun. The sun appears to move
around the earth because the earth turns on its axis! When are you
going to get it?
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
and history has proven him correct.
TAF: History has proven him more correct than Ptolemy, but still incorrect.
Have you looked up what epicircles are and why they are relevant to
this issue?
BA: Gadzooks! How lame in the brain art thou! Follow closely now,
Monsieu scientist! It is *epicycles* and they have absolutely *nothing*
to do with the discussion at hand. Ptolemy used *epicycles* as his
model to explain solar and planetary motion around the earth. Why?
Because Aristotle wanted to *Save the Appearance* of reality, which
had been the teachings of Plato. The appearance of reality is that
the sun goes around the earth. Copernicus ignored the model which
Ptolemy attempted to use to save the appearance of reality and instead
Copernicus came up with the brilliant idea that the *Sun Stands Still*
and all the planets go round it in motion. But that was *not* his explanation
of the appearance of the motion of the sun. The sun appears to move
around the earth because the earth turns on its axis! When are you
going to get it?
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
-
Gjest
Re: Charlemagne - and America
Dear Leo,
Would King Pedro IV of Portugal / Emperor Pedro I of
Brazil be considered a gateway ancestor ? His Great Great grandchildren were
allowed to return to Brazil after World War II.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)
Would King Pedro IV of Portugal / Emperor Pedro I of
Brazil be considered a gateway ancestor ? His Great Great grandchildren were
allowed to return to Brazil after World War II.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Charlemagne - and America
A very good thought
I will add him as he definitely has descendants in
Brazil.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <Jwc1870@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com>
Cc: <Jwc1870@AOL..com>
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 10:06 AM
Subject: Re: Charlemagne - and America
Brazil.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <Jwc1870@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com>
Cc: <Jwc1870@AOL..com>
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 10:06 AM
Subject: Re: Charlemagne - and America
Dear Leo,
Would King Pedro IV of Portugal / Emperor Pedro I of
Brazil be considered a gateway ancestor ? His Great Great grandchildren
were
allowed to return to Brazil after World War II.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's
hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-
Gjest
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
On Nov 21, 1:52 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
What did I say in my original critique: "Ira B. Peck was in no
position to know the facts of the creation of the document. He
_asserted_ what you describe, but (since you love those courtroom
analogies) it was hearsay, and inadmissible."
Why did I say this: because he would have had to be 250 years old to
be reporting something of which he had personal knowledge. The
alternative is that he was passing on hearsay.
And you are in no position to make this claim either. Your position
amounts to "he had the evidence because I say he did", but your
'statement of fact' can no more be taken as fact than his.
And tells us absolutely nothing of the contents of those letters. Even
if a letter gave this information, his word on it would be hearsay.
[good, he is back to proofreading, something at which I am sure he
excells]
Well, I do have a reasonably accurate impression that the longest
possible human lifespan in the 19th century was less that 250 years.
It doesn't stop anyone else from commenting, it doesn't stop them from
misinterpreting, it doesn't stop them from mischaracterizing, it
doesn't stop them from misquoting, and it doesn't allow us to know
which is the case.
After all, you have been misinterpreting the accuracy of the work of
Copernicus since you raised the issue.
That's right. Anyone who disagrees with Bill has a "biased agenda".
it couldn't possibly come from critical analysis of the facts.
Couldn't come from experience with such documents (experience Bill
admits he lacks). Nope - you either agree with Bill or you have a
biased agenda.
And *neither do you*. That is precisely my point. We don't know, but
we do know he had no personal knowledge of the events. At best he was
passing on someone else's story, which is hearsay.
I am only indicating that unsupported statements he made in the 19th
century are not a reliable source for events that took place in the
17th century. If you want to spin a worst-case scenario from that,
you only highlights one of the reasons such late statements are
unreliable, but that's not my fault.
And yet you are arguing with my conclusion that he must have been
passing on information from elsewhere (at best). Well, if you accept
that he did state the information, then the only alternative to him
passing on hearsay is that he witnessed it himself. It is one or the
other. You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too.
taf
BA: In fact, Ira B. Peck in his book on Joseph Peck
clearly STATED that the brother of Nicholas Peck, a 16thC-17thC gent in England
*commissioned* the Peck Pedigree, paid hard money and spent considerable time
on its behalf.
TAF: I had hoped we would have moved beyond such ridiculousness. Ira B.
Peck was in no position to know the facts of the creation of the
document. He _asserted_ what you describe, but (since you love those
courtroom analogies) it was hearsay, and inadmissible.
BA: You now impugn Ira. B. Peck
TAF: Not at all. I simply don't think he lived to be 250 years old, which
in no way speaks to his character.
BA: To quote an infamous gen-medievaler, "Hilarious!"
Now, who is playing word games? Thou Hypocrite!
What did I say in my original critique: "Ira B. Peck was in no
position to know the facts of the creation of the document. He
_asserted_ what you describe, but (since you love those courtroom
analogies) it was hearsay, and inadmissible."
Why did I say this: because he would have had to be 250 years old to
be reporting something of which he had personal knowledge. The
alternative is that he was passing on hearsay.
BA: And you are in *NO* position to know the facts of the thousands of
documents he had at his disposal in the mid 19thC.
TAF: Nifty attempt to confuse the issue, but it won't fly. I am making no
claim as to what documents he did or did not have before him.
BA: Well, I am, and have:
And you are in no position to make this claim either. Your position
amounts to "he had the evidence because I say he did", but your
'statement of fact' can no more be taken as fact than his.
Ira. B. Peck stated in the intro to his book
on the descendants of Joseph Peck that he spent two decades corresponding
with people around the world and had thousands of such at his disposal.
That is his statement of FACT.
And tells us absolutely nothing of the contents of those letters. Even
if a letter gave this information, his word on it would be hearsay.
TAF: However, I am in a decent position to state with absolute certainty
that Ira B. Peck did not witness the events surrounding the creation
of the pedigree, and therefor [sic] he is in no position to give reliable
[good, he is back to proofreading, something at which I am sure he
excells]
testimony respecting this issue.
BA: Where does a *supposed* scientist come up with *drivel* like this?
Well, I do have a reasonably accurate impression that the longest
possible human lifespan in the 19th century was less that 250 years.
Neither of us were around when Copernicus or Ptolemy stated their
statements of fact about the universe, but that does not preclude us
or anyone else from commenting about their respective works.
It doesn't stop anyone else from commenting, it doesn't stop them from
misinterpreting, it doesn't stop them from mischaracterizing, it
doesn't stop them from misquoting, and it doesn't allow us to know
which is the case.
After all, you have been misinterpreting the accuracy of the work of
Copernicus since you raised the issue.
TAF: He may have been passing on information that he learned from
others (although he provides no citation to indicate this was the case)
but if so, that is the very act of passing on hearsay to which I referred.
BA: I *know* what you were referring to: your biased agenda against
the authenticity of the Peck pedigree in the BML.
That's right. Anyone who disagrees with Bill has a "biased agenda".
it couldn't possibly come from critical analysis of the facts.
Couldn't come from experience with such documents (experience Bill
admits he lacks). Nope - you either agree with Bill or you have a
biased agenda.
You have *no* knowledge
of what caused Ira. B. Peck to state *emphatically* that his ancestor's
brother had spent his *own* money and time in commissioning the
pedigree,
And *neither do you*. That is precisely my point. We don't know, but
we do know he had no personal knowledge of the events. At best he was
passing on someone else's story, which is hearsay.
At worst: you are *alleging*
that Ira. B. Peck is a liar! Thou Hypocrite!
I am only indicating that unsupported statements he made in the 19th
century are not a reliable source for events that took place in the
17th century. If you want to spin a worst-case scenario from that,
you only highlights one of the reasons such late statements are
unreliable, but that's not my fault.
TAF: Not true. I have a perfect basis for concluding that he did not
witness 17th century events.
BA: Neither he nor I have *written* any such nonsense.
And yet you are arguing with my conclusion that he must have been
passing on information from elsewhere (at best). Well, if you accept
that he did state the information, then the only alternative to him
passing on hearsay is that he witnessed it himself. It is one or the
other. You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too.
taf
-
Gjest
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
On Nov 21, 2:08 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Oh, yes, the English professor is going to explain planetary dynamics,
listen closely.
But the *Sun Doesn't Stand Still*, Mr. English professor.
When are you going to get that I understand perfectly what you are
saying. I just think you have your head up . . . there I go with that
not-so-original idea again.
Just like the Peck pedigree. You parade out FACT which is not fact,
and when your bluff is called (not all that apt a metaphor, as you are
not bluffing - you actually believe it all, poor sod) you accuse those
who disagree of acting in bad faith or without knowledge or anything
else that diminishes the impact of their criticism, and it is all
their fault for not being as insightful as you. For not
understanding. For not getting it. They get it - but it's a load of
crap.
taf
BA: Copernicus was alone in believing Ptolemy was wrong,
and history has proven him correct.
TAF: History has proven him more correct than Ptolemy, but still incorrect.
Have you looked up what epicircles are and why they are relevant to
this issue?
BA: Gadzooks! How lame in the brain art thou! Follow closely now,
Monsieu scientist!
Oh, yes, the English professor is going to explain planetary dynamics,
listen closely.
Copernicus ignored the model which
Ptolemy attempted to use to save the appearance of reality and instead
Copernicus came up with the brilliant idea that the *Sun Stands Still*
and all the planets go round it in motion.
But the *Sun Doesn't Stand Still*, Mr. English professor.
When are you going to get it?
When are you going to get that I understand perfectly what you are
saying. I just think you have your head up . . . there I go with that
not-so-original idea again.
Just like the Peck pedigree. You parade out FACT which is not fact,
and when your bluff is called (not all that apt a metaphor, as you are
not bluffing - you actually believe it all, poor sod) you accuse those
who disagree of acting in bad faith or without knowledge or anything
else that diminishes the impact of their criticism, and it is all
their fault for not being as insightful as you. For not
understanding. For not getting it. They get it - but it's a load of
crap.
taf
-
kim
Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T
Ray O'Hara wrote:
Neither was George VI's name "George". It was "Albert".
(kim)
his name isn't george.
Neither was George VI's name "George". It was "Albert".
(kim)
-
Renia
Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T
kim wrote:
Same with Edward VII. His first name was Albert. Even Queen Victoria's
first name was Alexandrina.
Ray O'Hara wrote:
his name isn't george.
Neither was George VI's name "George". It was "Albert".
Same with Edward VII. His first name was Albert. Even Queen Victoria's
first name was Alexandrina.
-
Gjest
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
[ack!]
On Nov 21, 5:20 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
can't
On Nov 21, 5:20 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
Oh, but they do, as you approximate observed planetary motion within
^
can't
Copernican circular orbits unless you use them, and even then the
results are sketchy. Now, look up "ellipse". Then "barycenter".
Look up Kepler and Newton while you are at it.
You see, things are not as simple and straightforward as they seemed
to Copernicus - and interpreting the Peck pedigree is not as simple
and straight forward as you seem to believe.
taf
-
Gjest
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
On Nov 21, 2:08 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Oh, but they do, as you approximate observed planetary motion within
Copernican circular orbits unless you use them, and even then the
results are sketchy. Now, look up "ellipse". Then "barycenter".
Look up Kepler and Newton while you are at it.
You see, things are not as simple and straightforward as they seemed
to Copernicus - and interpreting the Peck pedigree is not as simple
and straight forward as you seem to believe.
taf
BA: Copernicus was alone in believing Ptolemy was wrong,
and history has proven him correct.
TAF: History has proven him more correct than Ptolemy, but still incorrect.
Have you looked up what epicircles are and why they are relevant to
this issue?
BA: Gadzooks! How lame in the brain art thou! Follow closely now,
Monsieu scientist! It is *epicycles* and they have absolutely *nothing*
to do with the discussion at hand.
Oh, but they do, as you approximate observed planetary motion within
Copernican circular orbits unless you use them, and even then the
results are sketchy. Now, look up "ellipse". Then "barycenter".
Look up Kepler and Newton while you are at it.
You see, things are not as simple and straightforward as they seemed
to Copernicus - and interpreting the Peck pedigree is not as simple
and straight forward as you seem to believe.
taf
-
Robert Peffers
Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T
"Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmucci@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:fOSdnRXcepWpNtnanZ2dnUVZ_o-mnZ2d@rcn.net...
It isn't Windsor either, but, as monarch, he can choose whatever name he
likes.
After all there was never a Queen Elizabeth I of the UK but the present
incumbent called herself, Elizabeth II.
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
news:fOSdnRXcepWpNtnanZ2dnUVZ_o-mnZ2d@rcn.net...
his name isn't george.
It isn't Windsor either, but, as monarch, he can choose whatever name he
likes.
After all there was never a Queen Elizabeth I of the UK but the present
incumbent called herself, Elizabeth II.
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
Will: And P.S. *IF* Douglas is going to produce another work on the
"descents from Charlemagne" or some such thing, the liklihood that he
would include the preposterous Peck pedigree, most known *solely* from
the work of a known fraudster... is slim to none. So you're getting all worked
up over nothing.
BA: So on the one hand you diss me and you diss Douglas Richardson, and
then you demonstrate to us that you now *speak* for him? What a pompous
individual, you are, Monsieur! I revert to French, for obvious reasons! In
his *ACKNOWLEDGMENTS* Douglas Richardson thanks, among others:
John Ravilious, Gary Boyd Roberts, and Renia Simonds. Your name, Will
Johnson, is *conspicuously* absent, along with other *wilderbeasts* who
roam this gen-medieval list. And:
you also prove to Douglas Richardson for being a *spokesperson* for him,
that you have NOT read *PLANTAGENET ANCESTRY* by him, Royal Ancestry
Series, Genealogical pub. co., 2004, hdbd, page ix, *"Introduction," viz.:
"PUBLICATION PLAN: This book is the first in a series of volumes on the
ancestry of the American colonial immigrants who have English gentry, noble,
or royal ancestry. Succeeding volumes will present descents from the Magna
Carta Sureties of 1215, early feudal English barons, and Emperor Charlemagne."
Touche, Monsieur!
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9 ... QtBI7ntAcJ
"descents from Charlemagne" or some such thing, the liklihood that he
would include the preposterous Peck pedigree, most known *solely* from
the work of a known fraudster... is slim to none. So you're getting all worked
up over nothing.
BA: So on the one hand you diss me and you diss Douglas Richardson, and
then you demonstrate to us that you now *speak* for him? What a pompous
individual, you are, Monsieur! I revert to French, for obvious reasons! In
his *ACKNOWLEDGMENTS* Douglas Richardson thanks, among others:
John Ravilious, Gary Boyd Roberts, and Renia Simonds. Your name, Will
Johnson, is *conspicuously* absent, along with other *wilderbeasts* who
roam this gen-medieval list. And:
you also prove to Douglas Richardson for being a *spokesperson* for him,
that you have NOT read *PLANTAGENET ANCESTRY* by him, Royal Ancestry
Series, Genealogical pub. co., 2004, hdbd, page ix, *"Introduction," viz.:
"PUBLICATION PLAN: This book is the first in a series of volumes on the
ancestry of the American colonial immigrants who have English gentry, noble,
or royal ancestry. Succeeding volumes will present descents from the Magna
Carta Sureties of 1215, early feudal English barons, and Emperor Charlemagne."
Touche, Monsieur!
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9 ... QtBI7ntAcJ
-
William Black
Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T
"Toby" <tstanbrook@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:72f8b7d8-1413-4af2-b239-539eba32b0e8@g30g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
They pay a voluntary contribution to the exchequer that is assessed in the
same way, as primary legislation would be required to get them to pay income
tax.
I believe they were informed (By one of the nastier Thatcher governments)
that if they didn't cough up the necessary cash then the legislation would
be enacted and if there was a constitutional crisis then, so be it...
I do have to add that there are historical alternatives to letting them keep
the money.
Parliament can try them for treason, cut off their heads and take the cash
and property, if it wishes.
There was a radio play made at about that time which had the Queen and
Prince Phillip rehoused, without the money, on a council estate, with
their kids rehoused near them.
In the play I seem to remember that they did ok and rather enjoyed it.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
news:72f8b7d8-1413-4af2-b239-539eba32b0e8@g30g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
First, in regards to the Crown Estate, it has been highlighted in the
press by royal servants that the UK government should return the Crown
Estate revenues if the civil list payments are stopped. The response
was that historically, the Crown Estate was used toprovide a revenue
to the monarch for effective government of the kingdom ie. building
roads, defence, etc. Now, that under Western Democracy, the government
is no longer the monarch, the monarch has no entitlement to the Crown
Estate revenues at all.
Although I applaud the fact that the royals pay income tax, it seems
that this is only on civil list payments received. They still seem to
be tax exempt on "personal income". Can someone correct me on this?
They pay a voluntary contribution to the exchequer that is assessed in the
same way, as primary legislation would be required to get them to pay income
tax.
I believe they were informed (By one of the nastier Thatcher governments)
that if they didn't cough up the necessary cash then the legislation would
be enacted and if there was a constitutional crisis then, so be it...
I do have to add that there are historical alternatives to letting them keep
the money.
Parliament can try them for treason, cut off their heads and take the cash
and property, if it wishes.
There was a radio play made at about that time which had the Queen and
Prince Phillip rehoused, without the money, on a council estate, with
their kids rehoused near them.
In the play I seem to remember that they did ok and rather enjoyed it.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
-
kim
Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T
William Black wrote:
It wasn't just a radio play, it was a 1992 novel by Sue Townsend called "The
Queen and I". It toured the country as a stage production with Paula Wilcox
playing the Queen. Each member of the cast took it in turns to hold a puppet
of a corgi. There's a full description of the novel here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Queen_and_I
(kim)
"Toby" <tstanbrook@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:72f8b7d8-1413-4af2-b239-539eba32b0e8@g30g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
First, in regards to the Crown Estate, it has been highlighted in the
press by royal servants that the UK government should return the
Crown Estate revenues if the civil list payments are stopped. The
response was that historically, the Crown Estate was used toprovide
a revenue to the monarch for effective government of the kingdom ie.
building roads, defence, etc. Now, that under Western Democracy, the
government is no longer the monarch, the monarch has no entitlement
to the Crown Estate revenues at all.
Although I applaud the fact that the royals pay income tax, it seems
that this is only on civil list payments received. They still seem to
be tax exempt on "personal income". Can someone correct me on this?
They pay a voluntary contribution to the exchequer that is assessed
in the same way, as primary legislation would be required to get them
to pay income tax.
I believe they were informed (By one of the nastier Thatcher
governments) that if they didn't cough up the necessary cash then the
legislation would be enacted and if there was a constitutional crisis
then, so be it...
I do have to add that there are historical alternatives to letting
them keep the money.
Parliament can try them for treason, cut off their heads and take
the cash and property, if it wishes.
There was a radio play made at about that time which had the Queen and
Prince Phillip rehoused, without the money, on a council estate,
with their kids rehoused near them.
In the play I seem to remember that they did ok and rather enjoyed it.
It wasn't just a radio play, it was a 1992 novel by Sue Townsend called "The
Queen and I". It toured the country as a stage production with Paula Wilcox
playing the Queen. Each member of the cast took it in turns to hold a puppet
of a corgi. There's a full description of the novel here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Queen_and_I
(kim)
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
BA: Copernicus was alone in believing Ptolemy was wrong,
and history has proven him correct.
Simon Fairthorne: no, there were several before Copernicus
who were unhappy with Ptolemy's model, in particular
Regiomontanus (aka Johannes Muller) who wrote in a letter
to Giovanni Bianchini: "I cannot wonder at the indolence of
common astronomers of our age, who, . . . receive as
something divine and immutable whatever they come upon
in books either of tables or their canons, for they believe in
writers and make no effort to find the truth."
BA: Yep, Simon, but I was trying to make it simple for the
simpleton TAF. For my 1975 publication of the true and
certain history of the subject, see the following url:
http://cyclesresearchinstitute.org/astr ... ldbode.pdf
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
and history has proven him correct.
Simon Fairthorne: no, there were several before Copernicus
who were unhappy with Ptolemy's model, in particular
Regiomontanus (aka Johannes Muller) who wrote in a letter
to Giovanni Bianchini: "I cannot wonder at the indolence of
common astronomers of our age, who, . . . receive as
something divine and immutable whatever they come upon
in books either of tables or their canons, for they believe in
writers and make no effort to find the truth."
BA: Yep, Simon, but I was trying to make it simple for the
simpleton TAF. For my 1975 publication of the true and
certain history of the subject, see the following url:
http://cyclesresearchinstitute.org/astr ... ldbode.pdf
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
-
Gjest
Re: Fitzalan and Arundel
Dear Newsgroup,
Those who are not yet totally sick of this subject might like to note that
for the period 1400-1700 there is only the one PCC Will indexed as Fitzalan
Description Will of Maud Fitzalan or Countess of Arundell of
Abbotisbury, Dorset Date 25 October 1436
and those who still have sufficient interest could pay the £3.50 to download
this and see if the original uses Fitzalan, and/or could try a search for
"fitz alan". I only checked for the one word, and did not look for alternative
spellings.
Adrian
Those who are not yet totally sick of this subject might like to note that
for the period 1400-1700 there is only the one PCC Will indexed as Fitzalan
Description Will of Maud Fitzalan or Countess of Arundell of
Abbotisbury, Dorset Date 25 October 1436
and those who still have sufficient interest could pay the £3.50 to download
this and see if the original uses Fitzalan, and/or could try a search for
"fitz alan". I only checked for the one word, and did not look for alternative
spellings.
Adrian
-
Gjest
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
On Nov 22, 5:54 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Blah, blah, blah - repeating it a fourth time does not make it more
insightful.
You are misusing your faux french as badly as you do your english.
taf
Will: And P.S. *IF* Douglas is going to produce another work on the
"descents from Charlemagne" or some such thing, the liklihood that he
would include the preposterous Peck pedigree, most known *solely* from
the work of a known fraudster... is slim to none. So you're getting all worked
up over nothing.
BA: So on the one hand you diss me and you diss Douglas Richardson, and
then you demonstrate to us that you now *speak* for him? What a pompous
Blah, blah, blah - repeating it a fourth time does not make it more
insightful.
Touche, Monsieur!
You are misusing your faux french as badly as you do your english.
taf
-
Gjest
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
On Nov 22, 7:24 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Do you never tire of telling lies?
taf
BA: Yep, Simon, but I was trying to make it simple for the
simpleton TAF.
Do you never tire of telling lies?
taf
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Top Surgeon Lists Five Key Blunders That May Have Cost D
Hmmmmmmm...
Instructive.
I think I generally prefer the American and British ambulance procedures to
the French.
However, everything depends on the discrete set of circumstances, including
the severity of the injuries ---- and capabilities, both in the ambulance
and at the hospital.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
------------------------------------------------
The Times
November 20, 2007
Top surgeon lists five key blunders that may have cost Diana her life
Patrick Foster
Diana, Princess of Wales, might have survived the car crash in which she
died had French medical staff not squandered vital time, her inquest was
told yesterday.
Sobering Revelation. -- DSH
Thomas Treasure, a leading British surgeon, told the inquest that a “window
of opportunity” may have existed to get her to hospital half an hour before
she was taken there. Professor Treasure, a former president of the European
Association for Cardiothoracic Surgery, said that medics had done “very
substantial good” in the initial period after the accident but that once the
Princess was in the ambulance time began “slipping away”.
The professor, who was asked to review records of the treatment given to the
Princess for Lord Justice Scott Baker, the coroner, conceded that the
combination of her internal injuries was extremely rare and serious but said
it was theoretically possible that she might have been saved.
The inquest heard of a sharp divide between the French approach to
multiple-injury patients — which favours treatment by doctors at the scene —
and the “scoop and run” approach taken in Britain. The jury has been told
that the Princess was freed from her Mercedes within 35 minutes of the crash
on August 31, 1997. She suffered an apparent cardiac arrest and had to be
given heart massage and stabilised on the road before being put inside the
ambulance, where she was intubated and ventilated and given a fuller
examination.
At one stage the Princess shouted out, pulled out her drip and was so
distressed that she had to be restrained, the inquest was told. It was not
until 1.40am that she was judged sufficiently stable to be taken to
hospital.
Dr Jean-Marc Martino, the emergency resuscitation specialist, then told the
ambulance driver to go slowly so as not to destabilise the Princess further.
At one point the vehicle had to stop for about five minutes near the
hospital entrance when her blood pressure dropped to perilously low levels
and she needed stabilisation.
A series of senior doctors have told the inquest that if she had not had
such intense treatment on the way she would have been dead on arrival.
Yes, that's one of the virtues of the French Protocol. -- DSH
The jury has been told how she suffered massive internal bleeding because of
a rupture to one of her pulmonary veins — attached to her heart — as well as
the casing of the heart itself. Once in hospital just after 2am, an X-ray
showed massive internal bleeding on the right side of her chest.
A surgeon opened up her thorax to search for the source of the bleeding but
could not immediately find the ruptured vessel.
Professor Alain Pavie, one of the top cardio-thoracic surgeons in France,
who had been called in from home, then took over, extending the cut to find
that the rupture was on the left rather than the right where the bleeding
was. He sewed it up but, despite prolonged resuscitation attempts with
oxygen, heart massage, electric shocks and massive doses of adrenalin,
doctors finally gave up the battle at 4am.
Professor Andreienhart, who reviewed the case for a French investigating
magistrate, told the inquest yesterday that there were no recorded cases in
medical literature of patients with the same combination of ruptures
arriving at hospital alive.
Hmmmmmmm... READ THAT AGAIN. -- DSH
Professor Treasure said: “They had done some very substantial good
relatively quickly — stabilising the neck, getting her out of the car — with
just a brief episode when they lost the pulse, they got things going again
and produced a normal blood pressure.”
But, describing the further treatment at the scene and the subsequent
journey to hospital, he said: “That’s where the time was slipping away.”
He went on: “That’s my analysis, they had done a lot of good in that first
half hour but from there, the next big amount of good that could be done
required a surgeon.”
READ THAT AGAIN... -- DSH
....Back at the hospital -- and a specialist surgeon, with team, was
apparently not immediately available, even when Diana arrived there. --
DSH
Nicholas Hilliard, counsel to the inquest, asked: “Is it your view that part
of that time, the essential period, was squandered?” Professor Treasure
replied: “It’s a hard word, isn’t it, but I think opportunities were lost.”
A Much Fairer & Professional Judgement. -- DSH
He went on: “At the point at which she was in the ambulance and that initial
assessment had been done pretty accurately and the neck was stabilised and
the circulation . . . I’m not quite sure what happened after that, that they
didn’t have her in hospital and Professor Pavie alerted rather sooner.”
INDEED. -- DSH
We need a Detailed, Complete Timeline. Perhaps we'll eventually get one. --
DSH
He added: “When I pick through this with the benefit of hindsight [and ask]
‘was this recoverable?’ the answer is, ‘Yes, it just about was’.”
He also questioned the large doses of adrenalin given to the Princess at the
hospital. “They ran out of syringes of adrenalin. It’s quite extraordinary,”
he said. “They didn’t lose for the lack of trying but it was not necessarily
productive trying.”
Professor Treasure, who is this week due to publish a study on how best to
treat multiple-injury patients, also questioned the decision to stop so near
to the hospital to stabilise the Princess when her blood pressure dropped.
The inquest continues.
What went wrong
Professor Treasure suggested that:
— A ventilation tube might not have been needed en route
— He questioned the decision to stop so close to the hospital rather than
speed up; the Princess might have survived if the journey to hospital had
been short
— A specialist team should have been on standby in advance
— Her chances would have been helped if a surgeon had opened up her chest
from the front rather than the side
— The amount of adrenalin that she was given during surgery may have been
counterproductive
----------------------------------
All this is with the benefit of HINDSIGHT of course.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Deus Vult
Requiescat In Pace
Instructive.
I think I generally prefer the American and British ambulance procedures to
the French.
However, everything depends on the discrete set of circumstances, including
the severity of the injuries ---- and capabilities, both in the ambulance
and at the hospital.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
------------------------------------------------
The Times
November 20, 2007
Top surgeon lists five key blunders that may have cost Diana her life
Patrick Foster
Diana, Princess of Wales, might have survived the car crash in which she
died had French medical staff not squandered vital time, her inquest was
told yesterday.
Sobering Revelation. -- DSH
Thomas Treasure, a leading British surgeon, told the inquest that a “window
of opportunity” may have existed to get her to hospital half an hour before
she was taken there. Professor Treasure, a former president of the European
Association for Cardiothoracic Surgery, said that medics had done “very
substantial good” in the initial period after the accident but that once the
Princess was in the ambulance time began “slipping away”.
The professor, who was asked to review records of the treatment given to the
Princess for Lord Justice Scott Baker, the coroner, conceded that the
combination of her internal injuries was extremely rare and serious but said
it was theoretically possible that she might have been saved.
The inquest heard of a sharp divide between the French approach to
multiple-injury patients — which favours treatment by doctors at the scene —
and the “scoop and run” approach taken in Britain. The jury has been told
that the Princess was freed from her Mercedes within 35 minutes of the crash
on August 31, 1997. She suffered an apparent cardiac arrest and had to be
given heart massage and stabilised on the road before being put inside the
ambulance, where she was intubated and ventilated and given a fuller
examination.
At one stage the Princess shouted out, pulled out her drip and was so
distressed that she had to be restrained, the inquest was told. It was not
until 1.40am that she was judged sufficiently stable to be taken to
hospital.
Dr Jean-Marc Martino, the emergency resuscitation specialist, then told the
ambulance driver to go slowly so as not to destabilise the Princess further.
At one point the vehicle had to stop for about five minutes near the
hospital entrance when her blood pressure dropped to perilously low levels
and she needed stabilisation.
A series of senior doctors have told the inquest that if she had not had
such intense treatment on the way she would have been dead on arrival.
Yes, that's one of the virtues of the French Protocol. -- DSH
The jury has been told how she suffered massive internal bleeding because of
a rupture to one of her pulmonary veins — attached to her heart — as well as
the casing of the heart itself. Once in hospital just after 2am, an X-ray
showed massive internal bleeding on the right side of her chest.
A surgeon opened up her thorax to search for the source of the bleeding but
could not immediately find the ruptured vessel.
Professor Alain Pavie, one of the top cardio-thoracic surgeons in France,
who had been called in from home, then took over, extending the cut to find
that the rupture was on the left rather than the right where the bleeding
was. He sewed it up but, despite prolonged resuscitation attempts with
oxygen, heart massage, electric shocks and massive doses of adrenalin,
doctors finally gave up the battle at 4am.
Professor Andreienhart, who reviewed the case for a French investigating
magistrate, told the inquest yesterday that there were no recorded cases in
medical literature of patients with the same combination of ruptures
arriving at hospital alive.
Hmmmmmmm... READ THAT AGAIN. -- DSH
Professor Treasure said: “They had done some very substantial good
relatively quickly — stabilising the neck, getting her out of the car — with
just a brief episode when they lost the pulse, they got things going again
and produced a normal blood pressure.”
But, describing the further treatment at the scene and the subsequent
journey to hospital, he said: “That’s where the time was slipping away.”
He went on: “That’s my analysis, they had done a lot of good in that first
half hour but from there, the next big amount of good that could be done
required a surgeon.”
READ THAT AGAIN... -- DSH
....Back at the hospital -- and a specialist surgeon, with team, was
apparently not immediately available, even when Diana arrived there. --
DSH
Nicholas Hilliard, counsel to the inquest, asked: “Is it your view that part
of that time, the essential period, was squandered?” Professor Treasure
replied: “It’s a hard word, isn’t it, but I think opportunities were lost.”
A Much Fairer & Professional Judgement. -- DSH
He went on: “At the point at which she was in the ambulance and that initial
assessment had been done pretty accurately and the neck was stabilised and
the circulation . . . I’m not quite sure what happened after that, that they
didn’t have her in hospital and Professor Pavie alerted rather sooner.”
INDEED. -- DSH
We need a Detailed, Complete Timeline. Perhaps we'll eventually get one. --
DSH
He added: “When I pick through this with the benefit of hindsight [and ask]
‘was this recoverable?’ the answer is, ‘Yes, it just about was’.”
He also questioned the large doses of adrenalin given to the Princess at the
hospital. “They ran out of syringes of adrenalin. It’s quite extraordinary,”
he said. “They didn’t lose for the lack of trying but it was not necessarily
productive trying.”
Professor Treasure, who is this week due to publish a study on how best to
treat multiple-injury patients, also questioned the decision to stop so near
to the hospital to stabilise the Princess when her blood pressure dropped.
The inquest continues.
What went wrong
Professor Treasure suggested that:
— A ventilation tube might not have been needed en route
— He questioned the decision to stop so close to the hospital rather than
speed up; the Princess might have survived if the journey to hospital had
been short
— A specialist team should have been on standby in advance
— Her chances would have been helped if a surgeon had opened up her chest
from the front rather than the side
— The amount of adrenalin that she was given during surgery may have been
counterproductive
----------------------------------
All this is with the benefit of HINDSIGHT of course.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Deus Vult
Requiescat In Pace
-
Leticia Cluff
Re: Fitzalan and Arundel
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 10:36:45 EST, ADRIANCHANNING02@aol.com wrote:
Sorry to bore you. Needless to say, the text of the will uses only the
finest title, "Comes Arundell."
I just wanted to make a new point, namely that even Nicolas could
refer to the earl of Arundel as John Fitz-Alan, thus confirming what
the librarian at Arundel Castle tells me, that the family name of the
earls has always been Fitzalan.
Tish
Dear Newsgroup,
Those who are not yet totally sick of this subject might like to note that
for the period 1400-1700 there is only the one PCC Will indexed as Fitzalan
Description Will of Maud Fitzalan or Countess of Arundell of
Abbotisbury, Dorset Date 25 October 1436
and those who still have sufficient interest could pay the £3.50 to download
this and see if the original uses Fitzalan, and/or could try a search for
"fitz alan". I only checked for the one word, and did not look for alternative
spellings.
Sorry to bore you. Needless to say, the text of the will uses only the
finest title, "Comes Arundell."
I just wanted to make a new point, namely that even Nicolas could
refer to the earl of Arundel as John Fitz-Alan, thus confirming what
the librarian at Arundel Castle tells me, that the family name of the
earls has always been Fitzalan.
Tish
-
John Briggs
Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T
Robert Peffers wrote:
Quiz time: which king was the third of that name of England, the second of
Scotland, and the first of Ireland?
--
John Briggs
"Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmucci@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:fOSdnRXcepWpNtnanZ2dnUVZ_o-mnZ2d@rcn.net...
his name isn't george.
It isn't Windsor either, but, as monarch, he can choose whatever name
he likes.
After all there was never a Queen Elizabeth I of the UK but the
present incumbent called herself, Elizabeth II.
Quiz time: which king was the third of that name of England, the second of
Scotland, and the first of Ireland?
--
John Briggs
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T
William III? [of Orange]
Of William & Mary...
DSH
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:9Jj1j.42091$T8.14391@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
Of William & Mary...
DSH
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:9Jj1j.42091$T8.14391@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
Robert Peffers wrote:
"Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmucci@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:fOSdnRXcepWpNtnanZ2dnUVZ_o-mnZ2d@rcn.net...
his name isn't george.
It isn't Windsor either, but, as monarch, he can choose whatever name
he likes.
After all there was never a Queen Elizabeth I of the UK but the
present incumbent called herself, Elizabeth II.
Quiz time: which king was the third of that name of England, the second of
Scotland, and the first of Ireland?
--
John Briggs
-
Gjest
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
On Nov 22, 7:24 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
What tripe. It looks impressive, with all the tables and equations,
and all of the scientists it quotes, but at its heart it is just
Kabbalistic number games and misapplication of impressive-sounding
irrelevancies. Really, to apply Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle to
planetary motion and pretend that it is meaningful? I was reminded of
one of the classics of our time, "The Dynamics of Interbeing and
Monological Imperatives in Dick and Jane: A Study in Psychic
Transrelational Gender Modes" by Calvin (and Hobbes).
I was also reminded of your posts on the Peck pedigree. Overbearing
overblown prose, smug patronizing self-satisfaction, red herrings,
strawmen, smoke and mirrors, dismissing of inconvenient facts,
delusions of persecution, etc. Oh, how could I forget, . . . all in a
publication predicated on a begged question.
taf
For my 1975 publication of the true and
certain history of the subject, see the following url:
http://cyclesresearchinstitute.org/astr ... ldbode.pdf
What tripe. It looks impressive, with all the tables and equations,
and all of the scientists it quotes, but at its heart it is just
Kabbalistic number games and misapplication of impressive-sounding
irrelevancies. Really, to apply Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle to
planetary motion and pretend that it is meaningful? I was reminded of
one of the classics of our time, "The Dynamics of Interbeing and
Monological Imperatives in Dick and Jane: A Study in Psychic
Transrelational Gender Modes" by Calvin (and Hobbes).
I was also reminded of your posts on the Peck pedigree. Overbearing
overblown prose, smug patronizing self-satisfaction, red herrings,
strawmen, smoke and mirrors, dismissing of inconvenient facts,
delusions of persecution, etc. Oh, how could I forget, . . . all in a
publication predicated on a begged question.
taf
-
John Briggs
Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T
Quiz time: which king was the third of that name of England, the
second of Scotland, and the first of Ireland?
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
William III? [of Orange]
Of William & Mary...
Are you guessing, or do you know that?
--
John Briggs
-
Don Stone
Re: Parentage of Sir John Botetourt, 1st Lord Botetourt
Don Stone wrote:
I have now had a chance to see Byerly for myself, and I don't think that
the records transcribed by Byerly mention a Robert, brother of John
Botetourt.
The page 258 reference given above is the index page for John
Botetourt. Of the records listed there for John Botetourt, four seem to
me to be possibly relevant to this issue of John's supposed brother
Robert: 1678, 1680, 1722, and 1725. Each of these records is a long
list of names, including a Johanni de Botetourte or Johanni Botetourte
or Johanni de Boteturte. Each list also includes a Roberto filio
Johannis, but this would seem to me to be saying Robert, son of John
(and each list includes several Johns). Douglas, can you clarify
things? Thanks!
-- Don Stone
Douglas Richardson wrote:
For additional evidence of Sir John
Botetourt's parentage, see Byerly, Recs. of the Wardrobe and Household
1286-1289 (1986): 258, which mentions Robert brother of John
Botetourt.
What is the exact wording of this reference to Robert, brother of John
Botetourt? If no surname is given, it occurs to me that it might be a
Robert de Saham, (half) brother of John Botetourt, since John is
elsewhere specified as a brother of William de Saham.
I have now had a chance to see Byerly for myself, and I don't think that
the records transcribed by Byerly mention a Robert, brother of John
Botetourt.
The page 258 reference given above is the index page for John
Botetourt. Of the records listed there for John Botetourt, four seem to
me to be possibly relevant to this issue of John's supposed brother
Robert: 1678, 1680, 1722, and 1725. Each of these records is a long
list of names, including a Johanni de Botetourte or Johanni Botetourte
or Johanni de Boteturte. Each list also includes a Roberto filio
Johannis, but this would seem to me to be saying Robert, son of John
(and each list includes several Johns). Douglas, can you clarify
things? Thanks!
-- Don Stone
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
Bill Arnold wrote that Ira Peck in the 19C wrote:
"The pedigree, as it is here given, may be found in the British Museum,
London, England, excepting the two last families, those of Robert and
Joseph, which are added to it..."
Diana Trenchard: In other words, the pedigree in London does not have
the families of Joseph and Robert Peck included.
BA: Correct paraphrase.
DT: While the original pedigree may be genuine, there is absolutely no
evidence that Joseph and Robert Peck were connected to the Nicholas
Peck who was responsible for the pedigree being drawn up, except that
their names had been added to the pedigree in Ira Peck's hands.
BA: What do *you* mean "there is absolutely no evidence"? You can
go to LDS or right here on rootsweb and see all the *evidence.* Or
you can *read* ira B. Peck's "Genealogical History of the Descendants
of Joseph Peck, who emigrated with his family to this coutnry in 1638...*
Mudge, Boston, 1868. And so you do not stay confused, Ira B. Peck
did *not* add the latter two families to the BML Peck Pedigree which
is dated 1620 and in Latin. He made a transcript in the front of his
book and therein added the two families.
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
"The pedigree, as it is here given, may be found in the British Museum,
London, England, excepting the two last families, those of Robert and
Joseph, which are added to it..."
Diana Trenchard: In other words, the pedigree in London does not have
the families of Joseph and Robert Peck included.
BA: Correct paraphrase.
DT: While the original pedigree may be genuine, there is absolutely no
evidence that Joseph and Robert Peck were connected to the Nicholas
Peck who was responsible for the pedigree being drawn up, except that
their names had been added to the pedigree in Ira Peck's hands.
BA: What do *you* mean "there is absolutely no evidence"? You can
go to LDS or right here on rootsweb and see all the *evidence.* Or
you can *read* ira B. Peck's "Genealogical History of the Descendants
of Joseph Peck, who emigrated with his family to this coutnry in 1638...*
Mudge, Boston, 1868. And so you do not stay confused, Ira B. Peck
did *not* add the latter two families to the BML Peck Pedigree which
is dated 1620 and in Latin. He made a transcript in the front of his
book and therein added the two families.
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
Diana Trenchard: Parish Registers had been in existence for almost a
century by the time of the emigration. Why has no Peck researcher
come up with the baptisms of these supposed three Peck brothers
which would at least include their fathers' name(s)?
BA: You have just reviewed a movie you have *not* seen, Diana.
You are caught up in Will's word *fraudster* which is a great one,
I admit. But, Ira. B. Peck publishes all the wills, et al., back to
Robert Peck, the father of Joseph, Robert and Nicholas. In fact,
the Rev. Robert was the first pastor of the church in Hingham in
America and returned to his parish in Hingham, England, also a
graduate of Oxford, or one of your notable universities which helped
craft the King James Version of the Holy Bible. In other words:
these Pecks are so famous, here, and over there, for you *not*
to know all this is beyond comprehension.
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
century by the time of the emigration. Why has no Peck researcher
come up with the baptisms of these supposed three Peck brothers
which would at least include their fathers' name(s)?
BA: You have just reviewed a movie you have *not* seen, Diana.
You are caught up in Will's word *fraudster* which is a great one,
I admit. But, Ira. B. Peck publishes all the wills, et al., back to
Robert Peck, the father of Joseph, Robert and Nicholas. In fact,
the Rev. Robert was the first pastor of the church in Hingham in
America and returned to his parish in Hingham, England, also a
graduate of Oxford, or one of your notable universities which helped
craft the King James Version of the Holy Bible. In other words:
these Pecks are so famous, here, and over there, for you *not*
to know all this is beyond comprehension.
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
-
Robert Peffers
Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T
"Toby" <tstanbrook@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:72f8b7d8-1413-4af2-b239-539eba32b0e8@g30g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Let us be blunt about this subject.
The royal lands were taken by dint of military power over others. In effect
they were stolen.
Royals were never elected but took what they wanted at the expense of
others.
What right do they now have to hold on to what they stole from the others in
the country?
I'm not suggesting taking their lands away from them or sending them to the
guillotine. Just stopping them getting anything else from the public purse.
After that it would be up to them to make the most of the assets they
already have.
Just think of this, Elizabeth was crowned in 1953 and she has carried out
her, "Royal Duty", ever since. Now every gig she does she is given some kind
of token. I remember her laying a foundation stone in the 1950s for the
Salveston housing estate that was meant for crippled ex-service folks from
WW!!. She was presented with a silver salver. She carried out several other
gigs around Edinburgh that day and at every one of these she was presented
with yet another gift. Now examine this little fact. The people who were
contributing to those little gifts were still living on food rations - Here
were the dates rations stopped.
July 1948 - Bread.
December 1948 - Jam.
May 1950 - Points rationing ended.
October 1952 - Tea.
February 1953 - Sweets.
April 1953 - Cream.
March 1953 - Eggs.
September 1953 - Sugar.
May 1954 - Butter, cheese, margarine and cooking fats.
June 1954 - Meat and bacon.
You couldn't buy a hamburger, yet here was Edinburgh Corporation handing
precious metal gifts to the richest woman in the World.
Now this has been going on 54 years and those presentation bits and bobs are
not sold but are consigned to the royal cellars under Buck House. They are
all tax free.
There is never a mention of this when estimates are attempted of the Royal
fortunes. Then we have gifts from foreign places, do you think Elizabeth has
these little gold, silver and bejeweled trinkets lying around her living
quarters as little keepsakes? That is just one of the nice little earners of
a days royal engagements, what about the free food, lodgings, booze and
other services provided every where she goes? What of all those goods
provided by grateful Royal Warrant holders? She does not even need to keep
her kids as these get kept by the country too.
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
news:72f8b7d8-1413-4af2-b239-539eba32b0e8@g30g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
First, in regards to the Crown Estate, it has been highlighted in the
press by royal servants that the UK government should return the Crown
Estate revenues if the civil list payments are stopped. The response
was that historically, the Crown Estate was used toprovide a revenue
to the monarch for effective government of the kingdom ie. building
roads, defence, etc. Now, that under Western Democracy, the government
is no longer the monarch, the monarch has no entitlement to the Crown
Estate revenues at all.
Although I applaud the fact that the royals pay income tax, it seems
that this is only on civil list payments received. They still seem to
be tax exempt on "personal income". Can someone correct me on this? I
don't think that this is fair. On the other hand, I don't have strong
objections to the monarch's exemption from inheritance tax. Royal
properties and privately owned lands should be passed on; after all,
they can hardly sell them off, can they?
On the unrelated issue of teaching creationism, I believe that it can
(and maybe should) be taught in state schools but in Religion lessons.
In Sciene lessons, there should only be a brief reference to it as ONE
of the theories of life.
Let us be blunt about this subject.
The royal lands were taken by dint of military power over others. In effect
they were stolen.
Royals were never elected but took what they wanted at the expense of
others.
What right do they now have to hold on to what they stole from the others in
the country?
I'm not suggesting taking their lands away from them or sending them to the
guillotine. Just stopping them getting anything else from the public purse.
After that it would be up to them to make the most of the assets they
already have.
Just think of this, Elizabeth was crowned in 1953 and she has carried out
her, "Royal Duty", ever since. Now every gig she does she is given some kind
of token. I remember her laying a foundation stone in the 1950s for the
Salveston housing estate that was meant for crippled ex-service folks from
WW!!. She was presented with a silver salver. She carried out several other
gigs around Edinburgh that day and at every one of these she was presented
with yet another gift. Now examine this little fact. The people who were
contributing to those little gifts were still living on food rations - Here
were the dates rations stopped.
July 1948 - Bread.
December 1948 - Jam.
May 1950 - Points rationing ended.
October 1952 - Tea.
February 1953 - Sweets.
April 1953 - Cream.
March 1953 - Eggs.
September 1953 - Sugar.
May 1954 - Butter, cheese, margarine and cooking fats.
June 1954 - Meat and bacon.
You couldn't buy a hamburger, yet here was Edinburgh Corporation handing
precious metal gifts to the richest woman in the World.
Now this has been going on 54 years and those presentation bits and bobs are
not sold but are consigned to the royal cellars under Buck House. They are
all tax free.
There is never a mention of this when estimates are attempted of the Royal
fortunes. Then we have gifts from foreign places, do you think Elizabeth has
these little gold, silver and bejeweled trinkets lying around her living
quarters as little keepsakes? That is just one of the nice little earners of
a days royal engagements, what about the free food, lodgings, booze and
other services provided every where she goes? What of all those goods
provided by grateful Royal Warrant holders? She does not even need to keep
her kids as these get kept by the country too.
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
-
Robert Peffers
Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:9Jj1j.42091$T8.14391@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
Who bloody cares?
news:9Jj1j.42091$T8.14391@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
Robert Peffers wrote:
"Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmucci@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:fOSdnRXcepWpNtnanZ2dnUVZ_o-mnZ2d@rcn.net...
his name isn't george.
It isn't Windsor either, but, as monarch, he can choose whatever name
he likes.
After all there was never a Queen Elizabeth I of the UK but the
present incumbent called herself, Elizabeth II.
Quiz time: which king was the third of that name of England, the second of
Scotland, and the first of Ireland?
--
John Briggs
Who bloody cares?
-
James Hogg
Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 13:18:14 -0800 (PST), Turenne
<richard.lichten1@virgin.net> wrote:
Neither of your guesses is right.
Anyway, there haven't been fifty kings called Richard.
They only go as far as Richard IV.
James
<richard.lichten1@virgin.net> wrote:
John Briggs wrote:
Quiz time: which king was the third of that name of England, the second of Scotland, and the first of Ireland?
Silly guess - Henry VIII?
Richard L
Neither of your guesses is right.
Anyway, there haven't been fifty kings called Richard.
They only go as far as Richard IV.
James
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Windsor vs. Wales
Vance Mead: Now I'm sorry I started this thread. It was meant
to be satire. Apparently no one got it.
BA: O: I got it :0 But, are you sure you don't mean parody?
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
to be satire. Apparently no one got it.
BA: O: I got it :0 But, are you sure you don't mean parody?
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
TAF: What rubbish. These Pecks are not famous either place, by any
reasonable definition of the word, except in the overinflated views of
their descendants. Do you know who Philip Hastwell was? Graduate of
Oxford (a notable university where they crafted the King James Bible)
and preacher - that makes his family famous, doesn't it? How about
Gamaliel Beamont? Same with him. That being said, it is probably
beyond _your_ comprehension, as seem to be the principles of
scholarship and of the use of evidence in pre-colonial genealogy.
BA: To quote your insipid pub-d/m/ate,
Hilarious!
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9 ... QtBI7ntAcJ
reasonable definition of the word, except in the overinflated views of
their descendants. Do you know who Philip Hastwell was? Graduate of
Oxford (a notable university where they crafted the King James Bible)
and preacher - that makes his family famous, doesn't it? How about
Gamaliel Beamont? Same with him. That being said, it is probably
beyond _your_ comprehension, as seem to be the principles of
scholarship and of the use of evidence in pre-colonial genealogy.
BA: To quote your insipid pub-d/m/ate,
Hilarious!
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9 ... QtBI7ntAcJ
-
Gjest
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
On Nov 22, 12:14 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
What rubbish. These Pecks are not famous either place, by any
reasonable definition of the word, except in the overinflated views of
their descendants. Do you know who Philip Hastwell was? Graduate of
Oxford (a notable university where they crafted the King James Bible)
and preacher - that makes his family famous, doesn't it? How about
Gamaliel Beamont? Same with him. That being said, it is probably
beyond _your_ comprehension, as seem to be the principles of
scholarship and of the use of evidence in pre-colonial genealogy.
taf
In fact,
the Rev. Robert was the first pastor of the church in Hingham in
America and returned to his parish in Hingham, England, also a
graduate of Oxford, or one of your notable universities which helped
craft the King James Version of the Holy Bible. In other words:
these Pecks are so famous, here, and over there, for you *not*
to know all this is beyond comprehension.
What rubbish. These Pecks are not famous either place, by any
reasonable definition of the word, except in the overinflated views of
their descendants. Do you know who Philip Hastwell was? Graduate of
Oxford (a notable university where they crafted the King James Bible)
and preacher - that makes his family famous, doesn't it? How about
Gamaliel Beamont? Same with him. That being said, it is probably
beyond _your_ comprehension, as seem to be the principles of
scholarship and of the use of evidence in pre-colonial genealogy.
taf
-
Diana Trenchard
Re: GEN-MEDIEVAL Digest, Vol 2, Issue 1690
On 22 Nov 2007, at 20:55, gen-medieval-request@rootsweb.com wrote:
evidence that Joseph, Robert and Nicholas were brothers. All you
have done is quote Ira Peck, which means you are quoting *secondary*
evidence. But Ira did no original research in England himself - he
quoted what he had been told by an English researcher. So that means
that you are actually quoting *tertiary* evidence.
You said 100+ messages ago that you are naive in genealogical
research, but surely you have learned or been told before now that
virtually Rule 1 is that you must always go back to original
*primary* sources in order to begin to produce anything like
convincing evidence. It is a very easy matter via the Internet to
get copies of *original* wills in England. So instead of quoting
your tertiary evidence about a will of a Peck said to be the father
of these three brothers, you would be able to show it by quoting
primary evidence - if it was true. I for one would be likely to be
convinced by such evidence. But so far you have not been able to
show such primary evidence, only quoted your tertiary evidence over
and over again ad nauseum.
I have no doubt that Robert and Joseph emigrated to America - indeed
I said so in my previous message which you appear to have chosen to
ignore. I have little or no doubt about the authenticity of the Peck
pedigree that was in the British Museum. But you have failed to
provide *primary* evidence that these two families are connected via
Nicholas. Do you understand that?
Diana
From: Bill Arnold <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com
Date: 22 November 2007 20:14:10 GMT
To: Gen-Med <GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
Diana Trenchard: Parish Registers had been in existence for almost a
century by the time of the emigration. Why has no Peck researcher
come up with the baptisms of these supposed three Peck brothers
which would at least include their fathers' name(s)?
BA: You have just reviewed a movie you have *not* seen, Diana.
You are caught up in Will's word *fraudster* which is a great one,
I admit. But, Ira. B. Peck publishes all the wills, et al., back to
Robert Peck, the father of Joseph, Robert and Nicholas. In fact,
the Rev. Robert was the first pastor of the church in Hingham in
America and returned to his parish in Hingham, England, also a
graduate of Oxford, or one of your notable universities which helped
craft the King James Version of the Holy Bible. In other words:
these Pecks are so famous, here, and over there, for you *not*
to know all this is beyond comprehension.
Bill
No Bill, it is you that has failed to produce one iota of *primary*
evidence that Joseph, Robert and Nicholas were brothers. All you
have done is quote Ira Peck, which means you are quoting *secondary*
evidence. But Ira did no original research in England himself - he
quoted what he had been told by an English researcher. So that means
that you are actually quoting *tertiary* evidence.
You said 100+ messages ago that you are naive in genealogical
research, but surely you have learned or been told before now that
virtually Rule 1 is that you must always go back to original
*primary* sources in order to begin to produce anything like
convincing evidence. It is a very easy matter via the Internet to
get copies of *original* wills in England. So instead of quoting
your tertiary evidence about a will of a Peck said to be the father
of these three brothers, you would be able to show it by quoting
primary evidence - if it was true. I for one would be likely to be
convinced by such evidence. But so far you have not been able to
show such primary evidence, only quoted your tertiary evidence over
and over again ad nauseum.
I have no doubt that Robert and Joseph emigrated to America - indeed
I said so in my previous message which you appear to have chosen to
ignore. I have little or no doubt about the authenticity of the Peck
pedigree that was in the British Museum. But you have failed to
provide *primary* evidence that these two families are connected via
Nicholas. Do you understand that?
Diana
-
Gjest
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
On Nov 22, 12:51 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ah, yes. Now he implies that two of those who disagree with him are
homosexual lovers. That _is_ an insightful and well-reasoned riposte.
What next, "My dad can beat up your dad"? "I'm paper and you're glue"?
(I guess it can't be much worse than "It's true because I say it is".)
Here is the problem, though, Professor. Such attacks do not change the
facts on the ground. Even if we are homosexual lovers, that does not
make your logic any less vacuous, your reasoning less forced, or your
insight less vapid. "Yes, madam, I am drunk. But in the morning I will
be sober and you will still be ugly."
Now, crawl back under that rock where you were festering when you
decided to involve implications regarding sexual orientation in a
discussion of the pedigree of Robert Peck of Beccles.
taf
BA: To quote your insipid pub-d/m/ate,
Hilarious!
Bill
Ah, yes. Now he implies that two of those who disagree with him are
homosexual lovers. That _is_ an insightful and well-reasoned riposte.
What next, "My dad can beat up your dad"? "I'm paper and you're glue"?
(I guess it can't be much worse than "It's true because I say it is".)
Here is the problem, though, Professor. Such attacks do not change the
facts on the ground. Even if we are homosexual lovers, that does not
make your logic any less vacuous, your reasoning less forced, or your
insight less vapid. "Yes, madam, I am drunk. But in the morning I will
be sober and you will still be ugly."
Now, crawl back under that rock where you were festering when you
decided to involve implications regarding sexual orientation in a
discussion of the pedigree of Robert Peck of Beccles.
taf
-
Renia
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
Bill Arnold wrote:
Can someone please explain the last sentence in the last paragraph?
I thought it read that Ira B Peck "added in" the two families.
Bill Arnold wrote that Ira Peck in the 19C wrote:
"The pedigree, as it is here given, may be found in the British Museum,
London, England, excepting the two last families, those of Robert and
Joseph, which are added to it..."
Diana Trenchard: In other words, the pedigree in London does not have
the families of Joseph and Robert Peck included.
BA: Correct paraphrase.
DT: While the original pedigree may be genuine, there is absolutely no
evidence that Joseph and Robert Peck were connected to the Nicholas
Peck who was responsible for the pedigree being drawn up, except that
their names had been added to the pedigree in Ira Peck's hands.
BA: What do *you* mean "there is absolutely no evidence"? You can
go to LDS or right here on rootsweb and see all the *evidence.* Or
you can *read* ira B. Peck's "Genealogical History of the Descendants
of Joseph Peck, who emigrated with his family to this coutnry in 1638...*
Mudge, Boston, 1868. And so you do not stay confused, Ira B. Peck
did *not* add the latter two families to the BML Peck Pedigree which
is dated 1620 and in Latin. He made a transcript in the front of his
book and therein added the two families.
Can someone please explain the last sentence in the last paragraph?
I thought it read that Ira B Peck "added in" the two families.
-
David Teague
RE: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T
From: john.briggs4@ntlworld.com
Subject: Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To The Throne?
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 18:17:41 +0000
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Quiz time: which king was the third of that name of England, the second of Scotland, and the first of Ireland?
--
John Briggs
William of Orange, who reigned from 1689 to 1702 as William III (Eng.), William II (Scot.), and William I (Ire.)
David Teague
_________________________________________________________________
Share life as it happens with the new Windows Live.Download today it's FREE!
http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?o ... ife_112007
-
Renia
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
Bill Arnold wrote:
Cambridge University Alumni, 1261-1900
Name:Robert Peck
College:ST CATHARINE'S
Died:1656
More Information:B.A. from ST CATHARINE'S, 1598-9. 3rd s. of Robert. B.
at Beccles, Suffolk. M.A. from Magdalene, 1603. Ord. deacon and priest
(Norwich) Feb. 24, 1604-5, age 25. C. of Oulton, Norfolk. R. of Hingham,
1605-38, 1646-56. A strong puritan; through his influence a large number
of his parishioners became nonconformists and emigrated to New England
where they founded Hingham, Mass., c. 1635. Under Bishop Wren he was
finally forced to flee to New England, 1638. Teacher of the church at
Hingham, Mass., 1638-41. Returned to England and was reinstated at
Hingham, Norfolk, 1646. Died there, 1656. Will (P.C.C.) 1658. Father of
Thomas (1624) and of Samuel (1629-30). (J. G. Bartlett.)
Hmm, no mention of the three supposed sons, Joseph, Robert and Nicholas,
unless they are the sons of a different Robert?
Cambridge University Alumni, 1261-1900
Name:Thomas Peck
College:JESUS
More Information:Adm. sizar at JESUS, July 8, 1624. S. of Robert
(1598-9). B.A. from Emmanuel, 1627-8; M.A. 1631. Ord. deacon (Peterb.)
Feb. 13; priest, Feb. 14, 1629-30. V. of Prittlewell, Essex, 1633-62,
ejected. Continued to reside in the parish. Succeeded as vicar by his
son Samuel (for whom see Al. Oxon.). Author, religious. Died at
Prittlewell. Buried there June 2, 1668. Will, P.C.C. Brother of Samuel
(1629-30). (Calamy, I. 515; Ph. Benton, Prittlewell, 588.)
Cambridge University Alumni, 1261-1900
Name:Samuel Peck
College:EMMANUEL
Entered:1629
More Information:Adm. sizar at EMMANUEL, Mar. 22, 1629-30. Of Norfolk.
S. of Robert (1598-9). Matric. 1629-30; B.A. 1633-4; M.A. 1637. A
physician of Chelmsford, Essex. Brother of Thomas (1624). (Ph. Benton,
Prittlewell, 582.)
Cambridge University Alumni, 1261-1900
Name:Samuel Peck
College:EMMANUEL
Entered:1683
More Information:Adm. pens. at EMMANUEL, Nov. 7, 1682. Of Essex. Perhaps
s. of Samuel, V. of Prittlewell (1663-71) and grandson of Thomas (1624).
Bapt. there, 1666. Matric. 1683. (Ph. Benton, Prittlewell, 591.)
Diana Trenchard: Parish Registers had been in existence for almost a
century by the time of the emigration. Why has no Peck researcher
come up with the baptisms of these supposed three Peck brothers
which would at least include their fathers' name(s)?
BA: You have just reviewed a movie you have *not* seen, Diana.
You are caught up in Will's word *fraudster* which is a great one,
I admit. But, Ira. B. Peck publishes all the wills, et al., back to
Robert Peck, the father of Joseph, Robert and Nicholas. In fact,
the Rev. Robert was the first pastor of the church in Hingham in
America and returned to his parish in Hingham, England, also a
graduate of Oxford, or one of your notable universities which helped
craft the King James Version of the Holy Bible. In other words:
these Pecks are so famous, here, and over there, for you *not*
to know all this is beyond comprehension.
Cambridge University Alumni, 1261-1900
Name:Robert Peck
College:ST CATHARINE'S
Died:1656
More Information:B.A. from ST CATHARINE'S, 1598-9. 3rd s. of Robert. B.
at Beccles, Suffolk. M.A. from Magdalene, 1603. Ord. deacon and priest
(Norwich) Feb. 24, 1604-5, age 25. C. of Oulton, Norfolk. R. of Hingham,
1605-38, 1646-56. A strong puritan; through his influence a large number
of his parishioners became nonconformists and emigrated to New England
where they founded Hingham, Mass., c. 1635. Under Bishop Wren he was
finally forced to flee to New England, 1638. Teacher of the church at
Hingham, Mass., 1638-41. Returned to England and was reinstated at
Hingham, Norfolk, 1646. Died there, 1656. Will (P.C.C.) 1658. Father of
Thomas (1624) and of Samuel (1629-30). (J. G. Bartlett.)
Hmm, no mention of the three supposed sons, Joseph, Robert and Nicholas,
unless they are the sons of a different Robert?
Cambridge University Alumni, 1261-1900
Name:Thomas Peck
College:JESUS
More Information:Adm. sizar at JESUS, July 8, 1624. S. of Robert
(1598-9). B.A. from Emmanuel, 1627-8; M.A. 1631. Ord. deacon (Peterb.)
Feb. 13; priest, Feb. 14, 1629-30. V. of Prittlewell, Essex, 1633-62,
ejected. Continued to reside in the parish. Succeeded as vicar by his
son Samuel (for whom see Al. Oxon.). Author, religious. Died at
Prittlewell. Buried there June 2, 1668. Will, P.C.C. Brother of Samuel
(1629-30). (Calamy, I. 515; Ph. Benton, Prittlewell, 588.)
Cambridge University Alumni, 1261-1900
Name:Samuel Peck
College:EMMANUEL
Entered:1629
More Information:Adm. sizar at EMMANUEL, Mar. 22, 1629-30. Of Norfolk.
S. of Robert (1598-9). Matric. 1629-30; B.A. 1633-4; M.A. 1637. A
physician of Chelmsford, Essex. Brother of Thomas (1624). (Ph. Benton,
Prittlewell, 582.)
Cambridge University Alumni, 1261-1900
Name:Samuel Peck
College:EMMANUEL
Entered:1683
More Information:Adm. pens. at EMMANUEL, Nov. 7, 1682. Of Essex. Perhaps
s. of Samuel, V. of Prittlewell (1663-71) and grandson of Thomas (1624).
Bapt. there, 1666. Matric. 1683. (Ph. Benton, Prittlewell, 591.)
-
Renia
Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T
Robert Peffers wrote:
Charles II was elected as was William of Orange and his wife, Mary.
Royals didn't "take what they wanted", as such. William the Conqueror
conquered England, hence his monicker. Everything, but everything in
England belonged to him. Hence Domesday Book. Slowly, his descendants
began to give it to the nation.
You are a bitter, bitter old man.
She holds these gifts for the nation. They do not constitute part of her
personal wealth.
"Toby" <tstanbrook@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:72f8b7d8-1413-4af2-b239-539eba32b0e8@g30g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
First, in regards to the Crown Estate, it has been highlighted in the
press by royal servants that the UK government should return the Crown
Estate revenues if the civil list payments are stopped. The response
was that historically, the Crown Estate was used toprovide a revenue
to the monarch for effective government of the kingdom ie. building
roads, defence, etc. Now, that under Western Democracy, the government
is no longer the monarch, the monarch has no entitlement to the Crown
Estate revenues at all.
Although I applaud the fact that the royals pay income tax, it seems
that this is only on civil list payments received. They still seem to
be tax exempt on "personal income". Can someone correct me on this? I
don't think that this is fair. On the other hand, I don't have strong
objections to the monarch's exemption from inheritance tax. Royal
properties and privately owned lands should be passed on; after all,
they can hardly sell them off, can they?
On the unrelated issue of teaching creationism, I believe that it can
(and maybe should) be taught in state schools but in Religion lessons.
In Sciene lessons, there should only be a brief reference to it as ONE
of the theories of life.
Let us be blunt about this subject.
The royal lands were taken by dint of military power over others. In
effect they were stolen.
Royals were never elected but took what they wanted at the expense of
others.
Charles II was elected as was William of Orange and his wife, Mary.
Royals didn't "take what they wanted", as such. William the Conqueror
conquered England, hence his monicker. Everything, but everything in
England belonged to him. Hence Domesday Book. Slowly, his descendants
began to give it to the nation.
What right do they now have to hold on to what they stole from the
others in the country?
I'm not suggesting taking their lands away from them or sending them to
the guillotine. Just stopping them getting anything else from the public
purse.
You are a bitter, bitter old man.
After that it would be up to them to make the most of the assets they
already have.
Just think of this, Elizabeth was crowned in 1953 and she has carried
out her, "Royal Duty", ever since. Now every gig she does she is given
some kind of token.
She holds these gifts for the nation. They do not constitute part of her
personal wealth.
-
John Briggs
Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T
Renia wrote:
Actually, distinguishing between "her personal wealth" and State Property is
neither straightforward nor transparent.
--
John Briggs
Robert Peffers wrote:
After that it would be up to them to make the most of the assets they
already have.
Just think of this, Elizabeth was crowned in 1953 and she has carried
out her, "Royal Duty", ever since. Now every gig she does she is
given some kind of token.
She holds these gifts for the nation. They do not constitute part of
her personal wealth.
Actually, distinguishing between "her personal wealth" and State Property is
neither straightforward nor transparent.
--
John Briggs
-
Gjest
Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T
Dear Renia,
Charles II wasn`t elected , Parliament voted to restore the
monarchy. He happened to be the eldest son of Charles I so he was given the
throne. On his ascension, Oliver Cromwell`s corpse was disinterred, hung ,
drawn, quartered, beheaded. Charles II didn`t ask anyone to do that... He was
more interested in keeping the crown and his life. He would as I understand
it attend all the necessary Anglian church ceremonies in public and heard
Catholic ritual in private. If James II hadn`t made a big stink about raising his
heir as a Catholic and publicly restoring England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales
to that religion He would have gone on as King.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)
Charles II wasn`t elected , Parliament voted to restore the
monarchy. He happened to be the eldest son of Charles I so he was given the
throne. On his ascension, Oliver Cromwell`s corpse was disinterred, hung ,
drawn, quartered, beheaded. Charles II didn`t ask anyone to do that... He was
more interested in keeping the crown and his life. He would as I understand
it attend all the necessary Anglian church ceremonies in public and heard
Catholic ritual in private. If James II hadn`t made a big stink about raising his
heir as a Catholic and publicly restoring England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales
to that religion He would have gone on as King.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)
-
Gjest
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
On Nov 22, 1:46 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
Bill's point, and I am sure it is important to him, is that Ira B Peck
did not add the names to the BL pedigree (which he is apparently
pretending is the "pedigree in [his] hands" referred to, even though
Peck is known never to have had it "in [his] hands".) In other words,
he heroically demolishes another pathetic strawman, with the "so you
don't stay confused" thrown in to ensure that his quite distinct
strawman is recognized to be a (mis)representation of the statement
made in the previous post. Instead, Bill says, Peck added them to the
*transcript* of the pedigree *in his book* (which presumably was not
"in [his] hands" at the time he added the names, or he wouldn't have
had a hand free to write, right?).
It lets him definitively rebut what Diana said with, . . . . what
Diana said.
taf
Bill Arnold wrote:
DT: While the original pedigree may be genuine, there is absolutely no
evidence that Joseph and Robert Peck were connected to the Nicholas
Peck who was responsible for the pedigree being drawn up, except that
their names had been added to the pedigree in Ira Peck's hands.
BA: What do *you* mean "there is absolutely no evidence"? You can
go to LDS or right here on rootsweb and see all the *evidence.* Or
you can *read* ira B. Peck's "Genealogical History of the Descendants
of Joseph Peck, who emigrated with his family to this coutnry in 1638...*
Mudge, Boston, 1868. And so you do not stay confused, Ira B. Peck
did *not* add the latter two families to the BML Peck Pedigree which
is dated 1620 and in Latin. He made a transcript in the front of his
book and therein added the two families.
Can someone please explain the last sentence in the last paragraph?
I thought it read that Ira B Peck "added in" the two families.
Bill's point, and I am sure it is important to him, is that Ira B Peck
did not add the names to the BL pedigree (which he is apparently
pretending is the "pedigree in [his] hands" referred to, even though
Peck is known never to have had it "in [his] hands".) In other words,
he heroically demolishes another pathetic strawman, with the "so you
don't stay confused" thrown in to ensure that his quite distinct
strawman is recognized to be a (mis)representation of the statement
made in the previous post. Instead, Bill says, Peck added them to the
*transcript* of the pedigree *in his book* (which presumably was not
"in [his] hands" at the time he added the names, or he wouldn't have
had a hand free to write, right?).
It lets him definitively rebut what Diana said with, . . . . what
Diana said.
taf
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T
Good, Brief Summary.
Renia doesn't know her British History all that well.
DSH
<Jwc1870@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.338.1195771514.28474.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Renia doesn't know her British History all that well.
DSH
<Jwc1870@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.338.1195771514.28474.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Dear Renia,
Charles II wasn`t elected , Parliament voted to restore
the
monarchy. He happened to be the eldest son of Charles I so he was given
the
throne. On his ascension, Oliver Cromwell`s corpse was disinterred, hung ,
drawn, quartered, beheaded. Charles II didn`t ask anyone to do that...
He was
more interested in keeping the crown and his life. He would as I
understand
it attend all the necessary Anglian church ceremonies in public and heard
Catholic ritual in private. If James II hadn`t made a big stink about
raising his
heir as a Catholic and publicly restoring England, Scotland, Ireland and
Wales
to that religion He would have gone on as King.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
-
Renia
Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T
Jwc1870@aol.com wrote:
Not by franchise, no, but . . .
Dear Renia,
Charles II wasn`t elected ,
Not by franchise, no, but . . .
Parliament voted to restore the
monarchy. He happened to be the eldest son of Charles I so he was given the
throne. On his ascension, Oliver Cromwell`s corpse was disinterred, hung ,
drawn, quartered, beheaded. Charles II didn`t ask anyone to do that... He was
more interested in keeping the crown and his life. He would as I understand
it attend all the necessary Anglian church ceremonies in public and heard
Catholic ritual in private. If James II hadn`t made a big stink about raising his
heir as a Catholic and publicly restoring England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales
to that religion He would have gone on as King.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)
-
Renia
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
taf@clearwire.net wrote:
I've got a headache.
On Nov 22, 1:46 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
Bill Arnold wrote:
DT: While the original pedigree may be genuine, there is absolutely no
evidence that Joseph and Robert Peck were connected to the Nicholas
Peck who was responsible for the pedigree being drawn up, except that
their names had been added to the pedigree in Ira Peck's hands.
BA: What do *you* mean "there is absolutely no evidence"? You can
go to LDS or right here on rootsweb and see all the *evidence.* Or
you can *read* ira B. Peck's "Genealogical History of the Descendants
of Joseph Peck, who emigrated with his family to this coutnry in 1638...*
Mudge, Boston, 1868. And so you do not stay confused, Ira B. Peck
did *not* add the latter two families to the BML Peck Pedigree which
is dated 1620 and in Latin. He made a transcript in the front of his
book and therein added the two families.
Can someone please explain the last sentence in the last paragraph?
I thought it read that Ira B Peck "added in" the two families.
Bill's point, and I am sure it is important to him, is that Ira B Peck
did not add the names to the BL pedigree (which he is apparently
pretending is the "pedigree in [his] hands" referred to, even though
Peck is known never to have had it "in [his] hands".) In other words,
he heroically demolishes another pathetic strawman, with the "so you
don't stay confused" thrown in to ensure that his quite distinct
strawman is recognized to be a (mis)representation of the statement
made in the previous post. Instead, Bill says, Peck added them to the
*transcript* of the pedigree *in his book* (which presumably was not
"in [his] hands" at the time he added the names, or he wouldn't have
had a hand free to write, right?).
I've got a headache.
It lets him definitively rebut what Diana said with, . . . . what
Diana said.
taf
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
Hi, Diana.
I changed the subject head, and normally just delete *Digest* in subject
headings, and only remembered you had written me about the Peck Pedigree.
I would suggest you change the subject headings if you read in *Digest* format.
Diana: No Bill, it is you that has failed to produce one iota of *primary*
evidence that Joseph, Robert and Nicholas were brothers. All you
have done is quote Ira Peck, which means you are quoting *secondary*
evidence. But Ira did no original research in England himself - he
quoted what he had been told by an English researcher. So that means
that you are actually quoting *tertiary* evidence.
BA: And, which might *not* surprise you, that is all you are going to get
on this subject. I will *not* be baited. Consult the citation, or forever
hold your peace. If my word is less than the citation, too bad. I could
care less about convincing you of anything! Your arrogance upon our
first communication is your choice, and mine is in your face :0
Diana: I have no doubt that Robert and Joseph emigrated to America - indeed
I said so in my previous message which you appear to have chosen to
ignore.
BA: I hope you understand I did not ignore you, but failed to read *Digest*
responses in subject headings. There is a lot of good on gen-medieval
and a lot of *terrible Brit/Amer food* I choose to delete. So, please accept
my bold statement, I did *not* ignore you. You owe an obligation to respond
in *subject* headings if you get messages in digest format. And lastly,
because it seems an issue with you: the brothers: Joseph, Nicholas and
Robert are so well established in the Peck lineage that I *attest* to it,
whether you believe me or not.
Scholar,
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
I changed the subject head, and normally just delete *Digest* in subject
headings, and only remembered you had written me about the Peck Pedigree.
I would suggest you change the subject headings if you read in *Digest* format.
Diana: No Bill, it is you that has failed to produce one iota of *primary*
evidence that Joseph, Robert and Nicholas were brothers. All you
have done is quote Ira Peck, which means you are quoting *secondary*
evidence. But Ira did no original research in England himself - he
quoted what he had been told by an English researcher. So that means
that you are actually quoting *tertiary* evidence.
BA: And, which might *not* surprise you, that is all you are going to get
on this subject. I will *not* be baited. Consult the citation, or forever
hold your peace. If my word is less than the citation, too bad. I could
care less about convincing you of anything! Your arrogance upon our
first communication is your choice, and mine is in your face :0
Diana: I have no doubt that Robert and Joseph emigrated to America - indeed
I said so in my previous message which you appear to have chosen to
ignore.
BA: I hope you understand I did not ignore you, but failed to read *Digest*
responses in subject headings. There is a lot of good on gen-medieval
and a lot of *terrible Brit/Amer food* I choose to delete. So, please accept
my bold statement, I did *not* ignore you. You owe an obligation to respond
in *subject* headings if you get messages in digest format. And lastly,
because it seems an issue with you: the brothers: Joseph, Nicholas and
Robert are so well established in the Peck lineage that I *attest* to it,
whether you believe me or not.
Scholar,
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
DT: While the original pedigree may be genuine, there is absolutely no
evidence that Joseph and Robert Peck were connected to the Nicholas
Peck who was responsible for the pedigree being drawn up, except that
their names had been added to the pedigree in Ira Peck's hands.
BA: What do *you* mean "there is absolutely no evidence"? You can
go to LDS or right here on rootsweb and see all the *evidence.* Or
you can *read* ira B. Peck's "Genealogical History of the Descendants
of Joseph Peck, who emigrated with his family to this coutnry in 1638...*
Mudge, Boston, 1868. And so you do not stay confused, Ira B. Peck
did *not* add the latter two families to the BML Peck Pedigree which
is dated 1620 and in Latin. He made a transcript in the front of his
book and therein added the two families.
Renia: Can someone please explain the last sentence in the last paragraph?
I thought it read that Ira B Peck "added in" the two families.
BA: I will try. The original Peck Pedigree is in the BML. It is several pages
and has Peck names with Peck *Arms* for 20 generations. The version which
Ira B. Peck has in the front of his book includes an additional 2 generations.
The BML original is in Latin with drawings of *Arms* done by the College
Heralds. The version which Ira B. Peck has in to front of his book has NO
*Arms* but is in English and in print-type of its date: 1868.
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9 ... QtBI7ntAcJ
evidence that Joseph and Robert Peck were connected to the Nicholas
Peck who was responsible for the pedigree being drawn up, except that
their names had been added to the pedigree in Ira Peck's hands.
BA: What do *you* mean "there is absolutely no evidence"? You can
go to LDS or right here on rootsweb and see all the *evidence.* Or
you can *read* ira B. Peck's "Genealogical History of the Descendants
of Joseph Peck, who emigrated with his family to this coutnry in 1638...*
Mudge, Boston, 1868. And so you do not stay confused, Ira B. Peck
did *not* add the latter two families to the BML Peck Pedigree which
is dated 1620 and in Latin. He made a transcript in the front of his
book and therein added the two families.
Renia: Can someone please explain the last sentence in the last paragraph?
I thought it read that Ira B Peck "added in" the two families.
BA: I will try. The original Peck Pedigree is in the BML. It is several pages
and has Peck names with Peck *Arms* for 20 generations. The version which
Ira B. Peck has in the front of his book includes an additional 2 generations.
The BML original is in Latin with drawings of *Arms* done by the College
Heralds. The version which Ira B. Peck has in to front of his book has NO
*Arms* but is in English and in print-type of its date: 1868.
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9 ... QtBI7ntAcJ
-
Renia
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
Bill Arnold wrote:
Thank you so much.
How did Ira B Peck know he could "add in" the two families?
DT: While the original pedigree may be genuine, there is absolutely no
evidence that Joseph and Robert Peck were connected to the Nicholas
Peck who was responsible for the pedigree being drawn up, except that
their names had been added to the pedigree in Ira Peck's hands.
BA: What do *you* mean "there is absolutely no evidence"? You can
go to LDS or right here on rootsweb and see all the *evidence.* Or
you can *read* ira B. Peck's "Genealogical History of the Descendants
of Joseph Peck, who emigrated with his family to this coutnry in 1638...*
Mudge, Boston, 1868. And so you do not stay confused, Ira B. Peck
did *not* add the latter two families to the BML Peck Pedigree which
is dated 1620 and in Latin. He made a transcript in the front of his
book and therein added the two families.
Renia: Can someone please explain the last sentence in the last paragraph?
I thought it read that Ira B Peck "added in" the two families.
BA: I will try. The original Peck Pedigree is in the BML. It is several pages
and has Peck names with Peck *Arms* for 20 generations. The version which
Ira B. Peck has in the front of his book includes an additional 2 generations.
The BML original is in Latin with drawings of *Arms* done by the College
Heralds. The version which Ira B. Peck has in to front of his book has NO
*Arms* but is in English and in print-type of its date: 1868.
Thank you so much.
How did Ira B Peck know he could "add in" the two families?
-
Gjest
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
On Nov 22, 3:19 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
'Scholar' indeed.
Again, "it is true because I say it is". Just as "it was true because
Peck said it was true".
Not if you think a single personal attestation is sufficient proof of
anything.
taf
Hi, Diana.
I changed the subject head, and normally just delete *Digest* in subject
headings, and only remembered you had written me about the Peck Pedigree.
I would suggest you change the subject headings if you read in *Digest* format.
Diana: No Bill, it is you that has failed to produce one iota of *primary*
evidence that Joseph, Robert and Nicholas were brothers. All you
have done is quote Ira Peck, which means you are quoting *secondary*
evidence. But Ira did no original research in England himself - he
quoted what he had been told by an English researcher. So that means
that you are actually quoting *tertiary* evidence.
BA: And, which might *not* surprise you, that is all you are going to get
on this subject. I will *not* be baited. Consult the citation, or forever
hold your peace. If my word is less than the citation, too bad.
'Scholar' indeed.
And lastly,
because it seems an issue with you: the brothers: Joseph, Nicholas and
Robert are so well established in the Peck lineage that I *attest* to it,
whether you believe me or not.
Again, "it is true because I say it is". Just as "it was true because
Peck said it was true".
Scholar,
Not if you think a single personal attestation is sufficient proof of
anything.
taf
-
Robert Peffers
Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:7rn1j.42128$T8.39630@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
Cite for that please?
news:7rn1j.42128$T8.39630@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
Renia wrote:
Robert Peffers wrote:
After that it would be up to them to make the most of the assets they
already have.
Just think of this, Elizabeth was crowned in 1953 and she has carried
out her, "Royal Duty", ever since. Now every gig she does she is
given some kind of token.
She holds these gifts for the nation. They do not constitute part of
her personal wealth.
Actually, distinguishing between "her personal wealth" and State Property
is neither straightforward nor transparent.
--
John Briggs
Cite for that please?
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
Renia wrote:
BA: well done, Renia. He is the Robert next to Joseph his brother and Nicholas
his brother in your above sentence. I have suggested anyone here could go
to LDS or Rootsweb:
Robert Peck, Born on 28 Nov 1548 in Beccles, Suffolk, England. Robert died in Beccles, Suffolk,
England on 22 Mar 1593, he was 44. Buried on 10 Nov 1598 in Beccles, Suffolk, England.
In 1582 Robert Peck was the register and collector for the Archdeacon of Suffolk.
"22 March 1592/3 - the will of Robert Peck - of Beccles, co. Suffolk, whole of mind and perfect of
remembrance, although sick and weak of body at Chelmsford, co. Essex...of...pleurisy...My body to
be buried where it shall please God to call me. To
Helen, my well-loved wife...all my houses, lands, tenements...leases, plate, goods, and chattels
within the town of Beccles, Barsham, Ingate, or elsewhere...my very good friends, Mr. Bartholomew
Stilies and Mr. John Talbot, to aid my wife with their
good counsel...To Richard Peck, my son, all my houses wherein I dwell in Blibergate Street, my
close at Ingate church and my "pightill" in the same field...Whereas Thomas Peck, my brother
deceased, by his last will gave unto the said Richard my son,
two tenements in Balligate Street, lately burnt, one of which has been built again on the same
ground and the other on part of the same ground and on part of other free ground which I purchased
of my uncle, William Waters, I will that the said Richard,
my son, within one month after he shall become twenty-one years of age, shall make over...To
Nicholss Peck, my son,...[and] To Samuel Peck, my son,...my son Robert at Cambridge...my two
daughters and my son Joseph...Helen, my wife,...sole executrix,
desiring her to have care of those my children whose legacies I have left to her consideration,
and also of Joane Babb and Elizabeth Babb and Robert Meriman and my sister Note [Nott] as she may.
Supervisors: Mr. Bartholomew Stiles, clerk, Mr. Roger
Peirson, and Mr. John Talbot...Written with my own hand the day and year above said. Proved at
Beccles 10 November 1598."
On 22 Jul 1573 when Robert was 24, he first married Ellen (Helen) Babbs, F, daughter of Nicholas
Babbs, M (1525-Oct 1550) & Helen Parkhurst, F (abt 1530-), in Of, Beccles, Suffolk, England. Born
in Sep 1546 in Guildford, Surrey, England. Ellen (Helen) died in Beccles, Suffolk, England on 31
Oct 1614, she was 68. Buried on 31 Oct 1614 in Beccles, Suffolk, England.
They had the following children:
i.
Richard, M, Born on 16 Feb 1574 in Of, Beccles, Suffolk, England. Richard died in Beccles,
Suffolk, England in 1615, he was 40.
On 19 Feb 1610 when Richard was 36, he married Rachel Young, F, in England.
ii.
Nicholas, M, Born on 15 Feb 1576 in Of, Beccles, Suffolk, England. Nicholas died in Eng. in Nov
1648, he was 72.
Nicholas first married Mrs. Bridgett Peck, F.
On 19 Feb 1610 when Nicholas was 34, he second married Rachel Young, F, in Yarmouth, Norfolk,
England.
iii.
Robert Peck, M, Rev. Emigrant to America, returned to England: Robert died on 30 Aug 1648 in
Hingham, Norfolk, England. Buried on 24 Jul 1651 in Hingham, Norfolk, England.
abt 1630 Robert first married Martha Bacon Watson, F, in of Beccles, Eng.
In Jul 1639 Robert second married Anne Lawrence, F, in Eng.
aft Aug 1648 Robert third married Martha Woodward, F, in Eng.
iv.
Martha, F. Born abt 1584 in Beccles, Suffolk, England. Martha died in Eng.
v.
Joseph Peck, M, emigrant to America, M (1587-1663)
vi.
Margaret, F. Born in 1589 in Of, Beccles, Suffolk, England. Margaret died in Eng.
vii.
Martha, F. Born in 1591 in Of, Beccles, Suffolk, England.
viii.
Samuel,, M. Born in 1593 in Of, Beccles, Suffolk, England. Samuel died in Beccles, Suffolk,
England in 1690, he was 97.
Robert second married Miss Waters, F.
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Cambridge University Alumni, 1261-1900
Name:Robert Peck
College:ST CATHARINE'S
Died:1656
More Information:B.A. from ST CATHARINE'S, 1598-9. 3rd s. of Robert. B.
at Beccles, Suffolk. M.A. from Magdalene, 1603. Ord. deacon and priest
(Norwich) Feb. 24, 1604-5, age 25. C. of Oulton, Norfolk. R. of Hingham,
1605-38, 1646-56. A strong puritan; through his influence a large number
of his parishioners became nonconformists and emigrated to New England
where they founded Hingham, Mass., c. 1635. Under Bishop Wren he was
finally forced to flee to New England, 1638. Teacher of the church at
Hingham, Mass., 1638-41. Returned to England and was reinstated at
Hingham, Norfolk, 1646. Died there, 1656. Will (P.C.C.) 1658. Father of
Thomas (1624) and of Samuel (1629-30). (J. G. Bartlett.)
Hmm, no mention of the three supposed sons, Joseph, Robert and Nicholas,
unless they are the sons of a different Robert?
BA: well done, Renia. He is the Robert next to Joseph his brother and Nicholas
his brother in your above sentence. I have suggested anyone here could go
to LDS or Rootsweb:
Robert Peck, Born on 28 Nov 1548 in Beccles, Suffolk, England. Robert died in Beccles, Suffolk,
England on 22 Mar 1593, he was 44. Buried on 10 Nov 1598 in Beccles, Suffolk, England.
In 1582 Robert Peck was the register and collector for the Archdeacon of Suffolk.
"22 March 1592/3 - the will of Robert Peck - of Beccles, co. Suffolk, whole of mind and perfect of
remembrance, although sick and weak of body at Chelmsford, co. Essex...of...pleurisy...My body to
be buried where it shall please God to call me. To
Helen, my well-loved wife...all my houses, lands, tenements...leases, plate, goods, and chattels
within the town of Beccles, Barsham, Ingate, or elsewhere...my very good friends, Mr. Bartholomew
Stilies and Mr. John Talbot, to aid my wife with their
good counsel...To Richard Peck, my son, all my houses wherein I dwell in Blibergate Street, my
close at Ingate church and my "pightill" in the same field...Whereas Thomas Peck, my brother
deceased, by his last will gave unto the said Richard my son,
two tenements in Balligate Street, lately burnt, one of which has been built again on the same
ground and the other on part of the same ground and on part of other free ground which I purchased
of my uncle, William Waters, I will that the said Richard,
my son, within one month after he shall become twenty-one years of age, shall make over...To
Nicholss Peck, my son,...[and] To Samuel Peck, my son,...my son Robert at Cambridge...my two
daughters and my son Joseph...Helen, my wife,...sole executrix,
desiring her to have care of those my children whose legacies I have left to her consideration,
and also of Joane Babb and Elizabeth Babb and Robert Meriman and my sister Note [Nott] as she may.
Supervisors: Mr. Bartholomew Stiles, clerk, Mr. Roger
Peirson, and Mr. John Talbot...Written with my own hand the day and year above said. Proved at
Beccles 10 November 1598."
On 22 Jul 1573 when Robert was 24, he first married Ellen (Helen) Babbs, F, daughter of Nicholas
Babbs, M (1525-Oct 1550) & Helen Parkhurst, F (abt 1530-), in Of, Beccles, Suffolk, England. Born
in Sep 1546 in Guildford, Surrey, England. Ellen (Helen) died in Beccles, Suffolk, England on 31
Oct 1614, she was 68. Buried on 31 Oct 1614 in Beccles, Suffolk, England.
They had the following children:
i.
Richard, M, Born on 16 Feb 1574 in Of, Beccles, Suffolk, England. Richard died in Beccles,
Suffolk, England in 1615, he was 40.
On 19 Feb 1610 when Richard was 36, he married Rachel Young, F, in England.
ii.
Nicholas, M, Born on 15 Feb 1576 in Of, Beccles, Suffolk, England. Nicholas died in Eng. in Nov
1648, he was 72.
Nicholas first married Mrs. Bridgett Peck, F.
On 19 Feb 1610 when Nicholas was 34, he second married Rachel Young, F, in Yarmouth, Norfolk,
England.
iii.
Robert Peck, M, Rev. Emigrant to America, returned to England: Robert died on 30 Aug 1648 in
Hingham, Norfolk, England. Buried on 24 Jul 1651 in Hingham, Norfolk, England.
abt 1630 Robert first married Martha Bacon Watson, F, in of Beccles, Eng.
In Jul 1639 Robert second married Anne Lawrence, F, in Eng.
aft Aug 1648 Robert third married Martha Woodward, F, in Eng.
iv.
Martha, F. Born abt 1584 in Beccles, Suffolk, England. Martha died in Eng.
v.
Joseph Peck, M, emigrant to America, M (1587-1663)
vi.
Margaret, F. Born in 1589 in Of, Beccles, Suffolk, England. Margaret died in Eng.
vii.
Martha, F. Born in 1591 in Of, Beccles, Suffolk, England.
viii.
Samuel,, M. Born in 1593 in Of, Beccles, Suffolk, England. Samuel died in Beccles, Suffolk,
England in 1690, he was 97.
Robert second married Miss Waters, F.
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
-
wjhonson
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
On Nov 22, 3:46 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
-----------
Bill you can see, can you not, that he did not die on 22 Mar 1593 as
you stated above. This date is the date he wrote his will, not the
day he died. Also I'm inclined to doubt that he was buried on 10 Nov
1598 since this is the exact same date that Will was proved.
Which is why when we quote something, we specify exactly what source
it is we are quoting.
Will Johnson
Robert Peck, Born on 28 Nov 1548 in Beccles, Suffolk, England. Robert died in Beccles, Suffolk,
England on 22 Mar 1593, he was 44. Buried on 10 Nov 1598 in Beccles, Suffolk, England.
In 1582 Robert Peck was the register and collector for the Archdeacon of Suffolk.
"22 March 1592/3 - the will of Robert Peck - of Beccles, co. Suffolk, whole of mind and perfect of
remembrance, although sick and weak of body at Chelmsford, co. Essex...of...pleurisy...My body to
be buried where it shall please God to call me. To
Helen, my well-loved wife...all my houses, lands, tenements...leases, plate, goods, and chattels
within the town of Beccles, Barsham, Ingate, or elsewhere...my very good friends, Mr. Bartholomew
Stilies and Mr. John Talbot, to aid my wife with their
good counsel...To Richard Peck, my son, all my houses wherein I dwell in Blibergate Street, my
close at Ingate church and my "pightill" in the same field...Whereas Thomas Peck, my brother
deceased, by his last will gave unto the said Richard my son,
two tenements in Balligate Street, lately burnt, one of which has been built again on the same
ground and the other on part of the same ground and on part of other free ground which I purchased
of my uncle, William Waters, I will that the said Richard,
my son, within one month after he shall become twenty-one years of age, shall make over...To
Nicholss Peck, my son,...[and] To Samuel Peck, my son,...my son Robert at Cambridge...my two
daughters and my son Joseph...Helen, my wife,...sole executrix,
desiring her to have care of those my children whose legacies I have left to her consideration,
and also of Joane Babb and Elizabeth Babb and Robert Meriman and my sister Note [Nott] as she may.
Supervisors: Mr. Bartholomew Stiles, clerk, Mr. Roger
Peirson, and Mr. John Talbot...Written with my own hand the day and year above said. Proved at
Beccles 10 November 1598."
Bill
-----------
Bill you can see, can you not, that he did not die on 22 Mar 1593 as
you stated above. This date is the date he wrote his will, not the
day he died. Also I'm inclined to doubt that he was buried on 10 Nov
1598 since this is the exact same date that Will was proved.
Which is why when we quote something, we specify exactly what source
it is we are quoting.
Will Johnson
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
--- Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
BA: i have quoted his intro in the archives, but if you do not mind a paraphrase
of what Ira B. Peck wrote: he wrote that since abt. 1850 up until pub. of his
book, 1868, he had written literally 2,000 or more letters and sent out 3,000
circulars soliciting Peck info from around the world and based on that extensive
research, which included returned documents, wills, parish records, et al., as
any genealogist, he was able to create pedigrees/lineages.
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Bill Arnold wrote:
DT: While the original pedigree may be genuine, there is absolutely no
evidence that Joseph and Robert Peck were connected to the Nicholas
Peck who was responsible for the pedigree being drawn up, except that
their names had been added to the pedigree in Ira Peck's hands.
BA: What do *you* mean "there is absolutely no evidence"? You can
go to LDS or right here on rootsweb and see all the *evidence.* Or
you can *read* ira B. Peck's "Genealogical History of the Descendants
of Joseph Peck, who emigrated with his family to this coutnry in 1638...*
Mudge, Boston, 1868. And so you do not stay confused, Ira B. Peck
did *not* add the latter two families to the BML Peck Pedigree which
is dated 1620 and in Latin. He made a transcript in the front of his
book and therein added the two families.
Renia: Can someone please explain the last sentence in the last paragraph?
I thought it read that Ira B Peck "added in" the two families.
BA: I will try. The original Peck Pedigree is in the BML. It is several pages
and has Peck names with Peck *Arms* for 20 generations. The version which
Ira B. Peck has in the front of his book includes an additional 2 generations.
The BML original is in Latin with drawings of *Arms* done by the College
Heralds. The version which Ira B. Peck has in to front of his book has NO
*Arms* but is in English and in print-type of its date: 1868.
Thank you so much.
How did Ira B Peck know he could "add in" the two families?
BA: i have quoted his intro in the archives, but if you do not mind a paraphrase
of what Ira B. Peck wrote: he wrote that since abt. 1850 up until pub. of his
book, 1868, he had written literally 2,000 or more letters and sent out 3,000
circulars soliciting Peck info from around the world and based on that extensive
research, which included returned documents, wills, parish records, et al., as
any genealogist, he was able to create pedigrees/lineages.
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
Will: And P.S. *IF* Douglas is going to produce another work on the
"descents from Charlemagne" or some such thing, the liklihood that he
would include the preposterous Peck pedigree, most known *solely* from
the work of a known fraudster... is slim to none. So you're getting all worked
up over nothing.
BA: So on the one hand you diss me and you diss Douglas Richardson, and
then you demonstrate to us that you now *speak* for him? What a pompous
individual, you are, Monsieur! I revert to French, for obvious reasons! In
his *ACKNOWLEDGMENTS* Douglas Richardson thanks, among others:
John Ravilious, Gary Boyd Roberts, and Renia Simonds. Your name, Will
Johnson, is *conspicuously* absent, along with other *wilderbeasts* who
roam this gen-medieval list. And:
you also prove to Douglas Richardson for being a *spokesperson* for him,
that you have NOT read *PLANTAGENET ANCESTRY* by him, Royal Ancestry
Series, Genealogical pub. co., 2004, hdbd, page ix, *"Introduction," viz.:
"PUBLICATION PLAN: This book is the first in a series of volumes on the
ancestry of the American colonial immigrants who have English gentry, noble,
or royal ancestry. Succeeding volumes will present descents from the Magna
Carta Sureties of 1215, early feudal English barons, and Emperor Charlemagne."
Touche, Monsieur!
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
"descents from Charlemagne" or some such thing, the liklihood that he
would include the preposterous Peck pedigree, most known *solely* from
the work of a known fraudster... is slim to none. So you're getting all worked
up over nothing.
BA: So on the one hand you diss me and you diss Douglas Richardson, and
then you demonstrate to us that you now *speak* for him? What a pompous
individual, you are, Monsieur! I revert to French, for obvious reasons! In
his *ACKNOWLEDGMENTS* Douglas Richardson thanks, among others:
John Ravilious, Gary Boyd Roberts, and Renia Simonds. Your name, Will
Johnson, is *conspicuously* absent, along with other *wilderbeasts* who
roam this gen-medieval list. And:
you also prove to Douglas Richardson for being a *spokesperson* for him,
that you have NOT read *PLANTAGENET ANCESTRY* by him, Royal Ancestry
Series, Genealogical pub. co., 2004, hdbd, page ix, *"Introduction," viz.:
"PUBLICATION PLAN: This book is the first in a series of volumes on the
ancestry of the American colonial immigrants who have English gentry, noble,
or royal ancestry. Succeeding volumes will present descents from the Magna
Carta Sureties of 1215, early feudal English barons, and Emperor Charlemagne."
Touche, Monsieur!
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T
....And when caught in a misstatement she tries to play semantic games.
DSH
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fi52u4$40k$2@mouse.otenet.gr...
DSH
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fi52u4$40k$2@mouse.otenet.gr...
Jwc1870@aol.com wrote:
Dear Renia,
Charles II wasn`t elected ,
Not by franchise, no, but . . .
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
Will Johnson wrote: Bill you can see, can you not, that he did not die on 22 Mar 1593 as
you stated above. This date is the date he wrote his will, not the
day he died. Also I'm inclined to doubt that he was buried on 10 Nov
1598 since this is the exact same date that Will was proved.
BA: OK, smug fraudster, reply to the following, which you seem to be ducking
as a fraudster and not such a scholar as you wish us to behold you as:
Will: And P.S. *IF* Douglas is going to produce another work on the
"descents from Charlemagne" or some such thing, the liklihood that he
would include the preposterous Peck pedigree, most known *solely* from
the work of a known fraudster... is slim to none. So you're getting all worked
up over nothing.
BA: So on the one hand you diss me and you diss Douglas Richardson, and
then you demonstrate to us that you now *speak* for him? What a pompous
individual, you are, Monsieur! I revert to French, for obvious reasons! In
his *ACKNOWLEDGMENTS* Douglas Richardson thanks, among others:
John Ravilious, Gary Boyd Roberts, and Renia Simonds. Your name, Will
Johnson, is *conspicuously* absent, along with other *wilderbeasts* who
roam this gen-medieval list. And:
you also prove to Douglas Richardson for being a *spokesperson* for him,
that you have NOT read *PLANTAGENET ANCESTRY* by him, Royal Ancestry
Series, Genealogical pub. co., 2004, hdbd, page ix, *"Introduction," viz.:
"PUBLICATION PLAN: This book is the first in a series of volumes on the
ancestry of the American colonial immigrants who have English gentry, noble,
or royal ancestry. Succeeding volumes will present descents from the Magna
Carta Sureties of 1215, early feudal English barons, and Emperor Charlemagne."
Touche, Monsieur!
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
you stated above. This date is the date he wrote his will, not the
day he died. Also I'm inclined to doubt that he was buried on 10 Nov
1598 since this is the exact same date that Will was proved.
BA: OK, smug fraudster, reply to the following, which you seem to be ducking
as a fraudster and not such a scholar as you wish us to behold you as:
Will: And P.S. *IF* Douglas is going to produce another work on the
"descents from Charlemagne" or some such thing, the liklihood that he
would include the preposterous Peck pedigree, most known *solely* from
the work of a known fraudster... is slim to none. So you're getting all worked
up over nothing.
BA: So on the one hand you diss me and you diss Douglas Richardson, and
then you demonstrate to us that you now *speak* for him? What a pompous
individual, you are, Monsieur! I revert to French, for obvious reasons! In
his *ACKNOWLEDGMENTS* Douglas Richardson thanks, among others:
John Ravilious, Gary Boyd Roberts, and Renia Simonds. Your name, Will
Johnson, is *conspicuously* absent, along with other *wilderbeasts* who
roam this gen-medieval list. And:
you also prove to Douglas Richardson for being a *spokesperson* for him,
that you have NOT read *PLANTAGENET ANCESTRY* by him, Royal Ancestry
Series, Genealogical pub. co., 2004, hdbd, page ix, *"Introduction," viz.:
"PUBLICATION PLAN: This book is the first in a series of volumes on the
ancestry of the American colonial immigrants who have English gentry, noble,
or royal ancestry. Succeeding volumes will present descents from the Magna
Carta Sureties of 1215, early feudal English barons, and Emperor Charlemagne."
Touche, Monsieur!
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
-
John Briggs
Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T
Robert Peffers wrote:
1) Who owns the Royal Collection?
2) What about the Royal Jewelry? The Duke of Windsor decamped with his
pockets stuffed with some of it - George VI had to buy them back. But some
items had been Royal property for centuries - who actually owns what?
--
John Briggs
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:7rn1j.42128$T8.39630@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
Renia wrote:
Robert Peffers wrote:
After that it would be up to them to make the most of the assets
they already have.
Just think of this, Elizabeth was crowned in 1953 and she has
carried out her, "Royal Duty", ever since. Now every gig she does
she is given some kind of token.
She holds these gifts for the nation. They do not constitute part of
her personal wealth.
Actually, distinguishing between "her personal wealth" and State
Property is neither straightforward nor transparent.
Cite for that please?
1) Who owns the Royal Collection?
2) What about the Royal Jewelry? The Duke of Windsor decamped with his
pockets stuffed with some of it - George VI had to buy them back. But some
items had been Royal property for centuries - who actually owns what?
--
John Briggs
-
wjhonson
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
Another issue, when Bill above says "you can go to the LDS", what he
is referring to is the Ancestral File where we see the confusion, as
above presented.
I'm not sure that Bill realizes that the Ancestral File is not a
reliable source. We're discussed it here in the past. The Ancestral
File is not research based, it is a massive work of compilation of
various sorts of things, mostly *sent in*. That is, the people who
run the http://www.familysearch.org site, did not themselves, research nor
prove any of the material sent.
All they did was type it into a large database, and remove duplicates
where they could.
Another major flaw in the Ancestral File is they do not list any
sources. Making it virtually useless for proving a line except to
generate a "basic skeleton" of what some people think or thought that
line looked like, at one time. It allows you at least the alledged
name, date, place, or what have you for various alleged members of the
family. So *you* can verify the data or show that it cannot be true.
It by itself is never the end-point, rather in some cases, the
beginning-point of the research project.
Will Johnson
is referring to is the Ancestral File where we see the confusion, as
above presented.
I'm not sure that Bill realizes that the Ancestral File is not a
reliable source. We're discussed it here in the past. The Ancestral
File is not research based, it is a massive work of compilation of
various sorts of things, mostly *sent in*. That is, the people who
run the http://www.familysearch.org site, did not themselves, research nor
prove any of the material sent.
All they did was type it into a large database, and remove duplicates
where they could.
Another major flaw in the Ancestral File is they do not list any
sources. Making it virtually useless for proving a line except to
generate a "basic skeleton" of what some people think or thought that
line looked like, at one time. It allows you at least the alledged
name, date, place, or what have you for various alleged members of the
family. So *you* can verify the data or show that it cannot be true.
It by itself is never the end-point, rather in some cases, the
beginning-point of the research project.
Will Johnson
-
wjhonson
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
On Nov 22, 4:05 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
My reply did not "diss" Douglas Richardson. And I did not state nor
imply that I was speaking for him. What I said was that, *if* he
intends to write a book on the descendents (or some of them) of
Charlemagne, it's highly doubtful your Pecks will make the cut. I
suppose you could presume that DR's book will be 15 thousand pages,
but somehow I'm sure it will be smaller.
Yes well getting a cudo from DR isn't the measure of one's worth. But
secondarily, DR's book came out, prior to my appearance on the scene.
You are correct I have not read the book. The only pieces I've seen
are the few free pages you can view through Google Books.
Will Johnson
BA: So on the one hand you diss me and you diss Douglas Richardson, and
then you demonstrate to us that you now *speak* for him? What a pompous
individual, you are, Monsieur! I revert to French, for obvious reasons!
My reply did not "diss" Douglas Richardson. And I did not state nor
imply that I was speaking for him. What I said was that, *if* he
intends to write a book on the descendents (or some of them) of
Charlemagne, it's highly doubtful your Pecks will make the cut. I
suppose you could presume that DR's book will be 15 thousand pages,
but somehow I'm sure it will be smaller.
In his *ACKNOWLEDGMENTS* Douglas Richardson thanks, among others:
John Ravilious, Gary Boyd Roberts, and Renia Simonds. Your name, Will
Johnson, is *conspicuously* absent, along with other *wilderbeasts* who
roam this gen-medieval list.
Yes well getting a cudo from DR isn't the measure of one's worth. But
secondarily, DR's book came out, prior to my appearance on the scene.
And: you also prove to Douglas Richardson for being a *spokesperson* for him,
that you have NOT read *PLANTAGENET ANCESTRY* by him, Royal Ancestry
Series, Genealogical pub. co., 2004, hdbd, page ix, *"Introduction," viz.:
"PUBLICATION PLAN: This book is the first in a series of volumes on the
ancestry of the American colonial immigrants who have English gentry, noble,
or royal ancestry. Succeeding volumes will present descents from the Magna
Carta Sureties of 1215, early feudal English barons, and Emperor Charlemagne."
You are correct I have not read the book. The only pieces I've seen
are the few free pages you can view through Google Books.
Will Johnson
-
Renia
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
Bill Arnold wrote:
One usually says touche when one's opponent has scored a point.
Will Johnson wrote: Bill you can see, can you not, that he did not die on 22 Mar 1593 as
you stated above. This date is the date he wrote his will, not the
day he died. Also I'm inclined to doubt that he was buried on 10 Nov
1598 since this is the exact same date that Will was proved.
BA: OK, smug fraudster, reply to the following, which you seem to be ducking
as a fraudster and not such a scholar as you wish us to behold you as:
Will: And P.S. *IF* Douglas is going to produce another work on the
"descents from Charlemagne" or some such thing, the liklihood that he
would include the preposterous Peck pedigree, most known *solely* from
the work of a known fraudster... is slim to none. So you're getting all worked
up over nothing.
BA: So on the one hand you diss me and you diss Douglas Richardson, and
then you demonstrate to us that you now *speak* for him? What a pompous
individual, you are, Monsieur! I revert to French, for obvious reasons! In
his *ACKNOWLEDGMENTS* Douglas Richardson thanks, among others:
John Ravilious, Gary Boyd Roberts, and Renia Simonds. Your name, Will
Johnson, is *conspicuously* absent, along with other *wilderbeasts* who
roam this gen-medieval list. And:
you also prove to Douglas Richardson for being a *spokesperson* for him,
that you have NOT read *PLANTAGENET ANCESTRY* by him, Royal Ancestry
Series, Genealogical pub. co., 2004, hdbd, page ix, *"Introduction," viz.:
"PUBLICATION PLAN: This book is the first in a series of volumes on the
ancestry of the American colonial immigrants who have English gentry, noble,
or royal ancestry. Succeeding volumes will present descents from the Magna
Carta Sureties of 1215, early feudal English barons, and Emperor Charlemagne."
Touche, Monsieur!
One usually says touche when one's opponent has scored a point.
-
Renia
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
Bill Arnold wrote:
Now you have confused me. Joseph, Robert and Nicholas were the sons of
which Robert? (Can't be 'the Robert next to Joseph his brother', because
you said this Robert and his brother were the sons of Robert.)
If he was 44 when he died in 1598, then he was born about 1554, not
1548. But if 10 Nov 1598 is the date of probate, then that puts his
death between 1593-1598. Probate was likely a few months after his
death, unless there were minor children involved, when it might have
taken longer.
I wonder why the Alumni doesn't mention he was deceased at his son's
entry in 1598/9?
Renia wrote:
Cambridge University Alumni, 1261-1900
Name:Robert Peck
College:ST CATHARINE'S
Died:1656
More Information:B.A. from ST CATHARINE'S, 1598-9. 3rd s. of Robert. B.
at Beccles, Suffolk. M.A. from Magdalene, 1603. Ord. deacon and priest
(Norwich) Feb. 24, 1604-5, age 25. C. of Oulton, Norfolk. R. of Hingham,
1605-38, 1646-56. A strong puritan; through his influence a large number
of his parishioners became nonconformists and emigrated to New England
where they founded Hingham, Mass., c. 1635. Under Bishop Wren he was
finally forced to flee to New England, 1638. Teacher of the church at
Hingham, Mass., 1638-41. Returned to England and was reinstated at
Hingham, Norfolk, 1646. Died there, 1656. Will (P.C.C.) 1658. Father of
Thomas (1624) and of Samuel (1629-30). (J. G. Bartlett.)
Hmm, no mention of the three supposed sons, Joseph, Robert and Nicholas,
unless they are the sons of a different Robert?
BA: well done, Renia. He is the Robert next to Joseph his brother and Nicholas
his brother in your above sentence. I have suggested anyone here could go
to LDS or Rootsweb:
Now you have confused me. Joseph, Robert and Nicholas were the sons of
which Robert? (Can't be 'the Robert next to Joseph his brother', because
you said this Robert and his brother were the sons of Robert.)
Robert Peck, Born on 28 Nov 1548 in Beccles, Suffolk, England. Robert died in Beccles, Suffolk,
England on 22 Mar 1593, he was 44. Buried on 10 Nov 1598 in Beccles, Suffolk, England.
If he was 44 when he died in 1598, then he was born about 1554, not
1548. But if 10 Nov 1598 is the date of probate, then that puts his
death between 1593-1598. Probate was likely a few months after his
death, unless there were minor children involved, when it might have
taken longer.
I wonder why the Alumni doesn't mention he was deceased at his son's
entry in 1598/9?
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: A NOTE ON SCHOLARSHIP
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Arnold" <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 11:33 AM
Subject: A NOTE ON SCHOLARSHIP
Bill,
allow me a Hinesian expression "Hilarious". Richardson's scholarly posts?
You think you have been long enough on gen-med to judge everything and
everyone. I say your presence, how long? Or should I say how short? Only a
matter of months? I have been here for (I think) over ten years.
A few _real_ scholars, who have departed from gen-med, have exposed the
shoddy knowledge of Richardson. Why do you think there is a webpage showing
errors/omissions in Richardsons "Plantagenet Ancestry"? No-one is perfect,
everybody makes misktakes. The only person who doesn't makes mistakes also
doesn't produce anything. Richardson had promised he would create such a
page, we waited I think about year and as nothing happened others did. Why
do you think there is a page with unanswered questions? A scholar should
explain his opinons, and if he can't should withdraw or change his stand.
SILENCE is not an option. Creating a mess and then walk away, how scholarly
is that?
Sure, I also respect Leo and Will for their fine
Bill,
You are joking. In the beginning everybody was pleasant and polite, after
all we are here to make friends. Not? When you have hit your head a few
times too many against a brick wall, you have to change your tune. When
"tempered" language doesn't do the trick, what do you do? Remain silent and
allow garbage to be distributed? Is that a scholarly approach? And talking
about "polite" and "tempered" how would you describe Richardson's treatment
of Tish not so long ago? Sexist and bullying come to my mind. You compare
Richardson with a lion? Again Hilarious, I'd better not say what animal I
have in mind.
If you do not
Bill,
What has Douglas Richardson on Gen-Med to do with Gary Boyd Roberts, who
isn't?
So: if I do, in fact, ignore certain
Bill,
Ignoring evidence, like Richardson does, not even you can describe as
scholarly. Now another point, several years ago I suggested to a dear friend
of Richardson that he should not defend Richardson on Gen-Med because it
gives others reasons to disagree, and repeat reasons for their distrust of
Richardson and his "scholarly" approach. Your lyrical support for Richardson
just did the same.
To me you only like people who agree with you (also a Richardson trait) and
everyone who is "so foolish" to even debate your points have to be put into
their place. How scholarly is that?
And now I am going to continue ignoring you.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia.
From: "Bill Arnold" <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 11:33 AM
Subject: A NOTE ON SCHOLARSHIP
HI, GEN-MEDIEVALERS
I, Bill Arnold, scholar, have been on gen-medieval long enough
to write *a note on scholarship.* This is coming about because
I was not born yesterday. I have recently been taken to task for
not responding to posts when the subject heading was *Digest.*
Nice. Not very scholarly, the challenge to my ignoring that. I
have recently had a gent take to task my posts, one by one looking
for lint. And yet, the very same gent *ignored* one of my own
posts in which he was caught red-handed in a huge unscholarly
post. And, then, there is the insipid poster who loves terrible
British food and to attack anyone and everyone: and then play
kissy-kissy to those scholars he wishes to curry favor with. O,
yes, there is that supposed-scientist who takes all my posts apart
and forever ignoring the gen-medieval content and what this
list is all about, genealogy, and he too is looking for lint. I suggest
he study his navel, which is what he is doing anyway. So: to end
my note on scholarship I will express my appreciation to Don Stone
and his fine list for his academic freedom to allow us to speak our
minds and to Douglas Richardson for his scholarly posts, despite
the abuse he takes.
Bill,
allow me a Hinesian expression "Hilarious". Richardson's scholarly posts?
You think you have been long enough on gen-med to judge everything and
everyone. I say your presence, how long? Or should I say how short? Only a
matter of months? I have been here for (I think) over ten years.
A few _real_ scholars, who have departed from gen-med, have exposed the
shoddy knowledge of Richardson. Why do you think there is a webpage showing
errors/omissions in Richardsons "Plantagenet Ancestry"? No-one is perfect,
everybody makes misktakes. The only person who doesn't makes mistakes also
doesn't produce anything. Richardson had promised he would create such a
page, we waited I think about year and as nothing happened others did. Why
do you think there is a page with unanswered questions? A scholar should
explain his opinons, and if he can't should withdraw or change his stand.
SILENCE is not an option. Creating a mess and then walk away, how scholarly
is that?
Sure, I also respect Leo and Will for their fine
websites. But the latter two gents ought to temper their tongues
when they take on the lion, Douglas Richardson.
Bill,
You are joking. In the beginning everybody was pleasant and polite, after
all we are here to make friends. Not? When you have hit your head a few
times too many against a brick wall, you have to change your tune. When
"tempered" language doesn't do the trick, what do you do? Remain silent and
allow garbage to be distributed? Is that a scholarly approach? And talking
about "polite" and "tempered" how would you describe Richardson's treatment
of Tish not so long ago? Sexist and bullying come to my mind. You compare
Richardson with a lion? Again Hilarious, I'd better not say what animal I
have in mind.
If you do not
know he is the lion on this board then you probably do not know
who Gary Boyd Roberts is either.
Bill,
What has Douglas Richardson on Gen-Med to do with Gary Boyd Roberts, who
isn't?
So: if I do, in fact, ignore certain
posters as I have the insipid-one, that is of my choosing. And if
they wish to continue their lint-seeking missions, well, so what.
I could care less. I am a scholar, and I know how to play the
game as well as the best of them. I can ignore, retort, whatever,
as my gut and my mind push me at that moment just like the
rest of the world of scholars. C'est la vie!
Bill,
Ignoring evidence, like Richardson does, not even you can describe as
scholarly. Now another point, several years ago I suggested to a dear friend
of Richardson that he should not defend Richardson on Gen-Med because it
gives others reasons to disagree, and repeat reasons for their distrust of
Richardson and his "scholarly" approach. Your lyrical support for Richardson
just did the same.
To me you only like people who agree with you (also a Richardson trait) and
everyone who is "so foolish" to even debate your points have to be put into
their place. How scholarly is that?
And now I am going to continue ignoring you.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia.
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how.
http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Fitzalan and Arundel
On Nov 22, 10:50 am, Leticia Cluff <leticia.cl...@nospam.gmail.com>
wrote:
< Sorry to bore you. Needless to say, the text of the will uses only
the
< finest title, "Comes Arundell."
Interesting.
The name Fitz Alan vanishes once again.
DR
wrote:
< Sorry to bore you. Needless to say, the text of the will uses only
the
< finest title, "Comes Arundell."
Interesting.
The name Fitz Alan vanishes once again.
DR
-
Gjest
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
On Nov 22, 4:01 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
But without knowing the contents of these letters, we have no basis
for concluding on what Mr. Peck based any of his statements, and they
thus become less-than-trustworthy. you act like the act of collecting
information is the sole requirement of compiling an accurate account.
It is not. My grandmother collected material for 20 years on a
mysterious ancestor. She had the authentic information, with his "true
and correct" ancestry right there among the correspondence. What she
wrote was a weave of misinformation and her personal desires, and bore
no resemblance to the actual historical reality - the fact. The fact
that she wrote a lot of letters proved no guarantee of the reliability
of the product, nor did the fact that she had the correct information
right there in her hand. Bless her heart, said heart played the
dominant role in her story, rather than her head. That is why Mr.
Peck can not be trusted solely on the basis of the number of
typewriter ribbons he exhausted.
taf
--- Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
Bill Arnold wrote:
How did Ira B Peck know he could "add in" the two families?
BA: i have quoted his intro in the archives, but if you do not mind a paraphrase
of what Ira B. Peck wrote: he wrote that since abt. 1850 up until pub. of his
book, 1868, he had written literally 2,000 or more letters and sent out 3,000
circulars soliciting Peck info from around the world and based on that extensive
research, which included returned documents, wills, parish records, et al., as
any genealogist, he was able to create pedigrees/lineages.
But without knowing the contents of these letters, we have no basis
for concluding on what Mr. Peck based any of his statements, and they
thus become less-than-trustworthy. you act like the act of collecting
information is the sole requirement of compiling an accurate account.
It is not. My grandmother collected material for 20 years on a
mysterious ancestor. She had the authentic information, with his "true
and correct" ancestry right there among the correspondence. What she
wrote was a weave of misinformation and her personal desires, and bore
no resemblance to the actual historical reality - the fact. The fact
that she wrote a lot of letters proved no guarantee of the reliability
of the product, nor did the fact that she had the correct information
right there in her hand. Bless her heart, said heart played the
dominant role in her story, rather than her head. That is why Mr.
Peck can not be trusted solely on the basis of the number of
typewriter ribbons he exhausted.
taf
-
Gjest
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
On Nov 22, 4:05 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Bill, I thought you wanted to discuss the Peck genealogy. Isn't that
what you whined about in the other thread?
taf
Will: And P.S. *IF* Douglas is going to produce another work on the
"descents from Charlemagne" or some such thing, the liklihood that he
would include the preposterous Peck pedigree, most known *solely* from
the work of a known fraudster... is slim to none. So you're getting all worked
up over nothing.
BA: So on the one hand you diss me and you diss Douglas Richardson, and
then you demonstrate to us that you now *speak* for him? What a pompous
Bill, I thought you wanted to discuss the Peck genealogy. Isn't that
what you whined about in the other thread?
taf
-
Gjest
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
On Nov 22, 4:39 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
No, of course not. Touche is the appropriate word to use when you
attack someone else. That is TRUE AND CERTAIN, and must be a fact
because I said it is.
(What do you expect when the man doesn't even use English words
appropriately.)
I all seriousness, it can be used when one wishes (demands)
acknowledgment that this has been the case, but in the form of a
question - Touche? (I recall John le Carre using it in this manner
near the end of Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, or at least the BBC version
with Alec Guiness.) It is, of course, a French dueling term, where a
gentleman was supposed to admit that he had been scored upon. To crow
"I really got you that time!" which is the rough translation of Mr.
Arnold's declaration, would be considered ungentlemanly, but where's
the surprise in that.
taf
Bill Arnold wrote:
Touche, Monsieur!
One usually says touche when one's opponent has scored a point.
No, of course not. Touche is the appropriate word to use when you
attack someone else. That is TRUE AND CERTAIN, and must be a fact
because I said it is.
(What do you expect when the man doesn't even use English words
appropriately.)
I all seriousness, it can be used when one wishes (demands)
acknowledgment that this has been the case, but in the form of a
question - Touche? (I recall John le Carre using it in this manner
near the end of Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, or at least the BBC version
with Alec Guiness.) It is, of course, a French dueling term, where a
gentleman was supposed to admit that he had been scored upon. To crow
"I really got you that time!" which is the rough translation of Mr.
Arnold's declaration, would be considered ungentlemanly, but where's
the surprise in that.
taf
-
Diana Trenchard
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
Two apologies.
Firstly that in a previous message I omitted to change the subject
title from 'Digest' to above.
Secondly, for my poor choice of words when I said that Ira Peck 'had
the pedigree in his hands', when I should have said something like
'transcript of the pedigree' or 'information about the pedigree'.
The point I was making was where did the information come from which
was added to the pedigree. No way was I implying that Ira Peck had
altered the original pedigree in the British Museum. I was querying
where this information about the two families had come from that was
added, and questioning why it hadn't been put into the original
pedigree at the time it was drawn up
I was only trying to be helpful and point out where Bill Arnold's
information apparently had some flaws, and to make suggestions as to
how he could verify it - or not as the case may be - from primary
sources.
Instead I was treated in a condescending manner and told that I
should go and read a tertiary source (Ira Peck's book) or the IGI
(Ancestral File apparently) in order to obtain the truth.
So much for trying to be helpful!
Now it's back to my own world of primary sources, listing references
to sources, and trying to verify, verify, verify all that has been
written by other people.
Diana
Firstly that in a previous message I omitted to change the subject
title from 'Digest' to above.
Secondly, for my poor choice of words when I said that Ira Peck 'had
the pedigree in his hands', when I should have said something like
'transcript of the pedigree' or 'information about the pedigree'.
The point I was making was where did the information come from which
was added to the pedigree. No way was I implying that Ira Peck had
altered the original pedigree in the British Museum. I was querying
where this information about the two families had come from that was
added, and questioning why it hadn't been put into the original
pedigree at the time it was drawn up
I was only trying to be helpful and point out where Bill Arnold's
information apparently had some flaws, and to make suggestions as to
how he could verify it - or not as the case may be - from primary
sources.
Instead I was treated in a condescending manner and told that I
should go and read a tertiary source (Ira Peck's book) or the IGI
(Ancestral File apparently) in order to obtain the truth.
So much for trying to be helpful!
Now it's back to my own world of primary sources, listing references
to sources, and trying to verify, verify, verify all that has been
written by other people.
Diana
-
Renia
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
Diana Trenchard wrote:
Exactly. This is all any of are saying.
Now, why would you want to do that?
Of course, it's the scholarly thing to do.
Two apologies.
Firstly that in a previous message I omitted to change the subject
title from 'Digest' to above.
Secondly, for my poor choice of words when I said that Ira Peck 'had
the pedigree in his hands', when I should have said something like
'transcript of the pedigree' or 'information about the pedigree'. The
point I was making was where did the information come from which was
added to the pedigree.
Exactly. This is all any of are saying.
No way was I implying that Ira Peck had altered
the original pedigree in the British Museum. I was querying where this
information about the two families had come from that was added, and
questioning why it hadn't been put into the original pedigree at the
time it was drawn up
I was only trying to be helpful and point out where Bill Arnold's
information apparently had some flaws, and to make suggestions as to
how he could verify it - or not as the case may be - from primary sources.
Instead I was treated in a condescending manner and told that I should
go and read a tertiary source (Ira Peck's book) or the IGI (Ancestral
File apparently) in order to obtain the truth.
So much for trying to be helpful!
Now it's back to my own world of primary sources, listing references to
sources, and trying to verify, verify, verify all that has been written
by other people.
Now, why would you want to do that?
Of course, it's the scholarly thing to do.
-
a.spencer3
Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T
"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:S4ednYAAxJVIcNjaRVnyhAA@bt.com...
And so did a lot of your luverly Lairds.
Get a bit objective and some might continue to read/reply.
Surreyman
news:S4ednYAAxJVIcNjaRVnyhAA@bt.com...
"Toby" <tstanbrook@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:72f8b7d8-1413-4af2-b239-539eba32b0e8@g30g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
First, in regards to the Crown Estate, it has been highlighted in the
press by royal servants that the UK government should return the Crown
Estate revenues if the civil list payments are stopped. The response
was that historically, the Crown Estate was used toprovide a revenue
to the monarch for effective government of the kingdom ie. building
roads, defence, etc. Now, that under Western Democracy, the government
is no longer the monarch, the monarch has no entitlement to the Crown
Estate revenues at all.
Although I applaud the fact that the royals pay income tax, it seems
that this is only on civil list payments received. They still seem to
be tax exempt on "personal income". Can someone correct me on this? I
don't think that this is fair. On the other hand, I don't have strong
objections to the monarch's exemption from inheritance tax. Royal
properties and privately owned lands should be passed on; after all,
they can hardly sell them off, can they?
On the unrelated issue of teaching creationism, I believe that it can
(and maybe should) be taught in state schools but in Religion lessons.
In Sciene lessons, there should only be a brief reference to it as ONE
of the theories of life.
Let us be blunt about this subject.
The royal lands were taken by dint of military power over others. In
effect
they were stolen.
Royals were never elected but took what they wanted at the expense of
others.
What right do they now have to hold on to what they stole from the others
in
the country?
I'm not suggesting taking their lands away from them or sending them to
the
guillotine. Just stopping them getting anything else from the public
purse.
After that it would be up to them to make the most of the assets they
already have.
Just think of this, Elizabeth was crowned in 1953 and she has carried out
her, "Royal Duty", ever since. Now every gig she does she is given some
kind
of token. I remember her laying a foundation stone in the 1950s for the
Salveston housing estate that was meant for crippled ex-service folks from
WW!!. She was presented with a silver salver. She carried out several
other
gigs around Edinburgh that day and at every one of these she was presented
with yet another gift. Now examine this little fact. The people who were
contributing to those little gifts were still living on food rations -
Here
were the dates rations stopped.
July 1948 - Bread.
December 1948 - Jam.
May 1950 - Points rationing ended.
October 1952 - Tea.
February 1953 - Sweets.
April 1953 - Cream.
March 1953 - Eggs.
September 1953 - Sugar.
May 1954 - Butter, cheese, margarine and cooking fats.
June 1954 - Meat and bacon.
You couldn't buy a hamburger, yet here was Edinburgh Corporation handing
precious metal gifts to the richest woman in the World.
Now this has been going on 54 years and those presentation bits and bobs
are
not sold but are consigned to the royal cellars under Buck House. They are
all tax free.
There is never a mention of this when estimates are attempted of the Royal
fortunes. Then we have gifts from foreign places, do you think Elizabeth
has
these little gold, silver and bejeweled trinkets lying around her living
quarters as little keepsakes? That is just one of the nice little earners
of
a days royal engagements, what about the free food, lodgings, booze and
other services provided every where she goes? What of all those goods
provided by grateful Royal Warrant holders? She does not even need to keep
her kids as these get kept by the country too.
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
And so did a lot of your luverly Lairds.
Get a bit objective and some might continue to read/reply.
Surreyman
-
a.spencer3
Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fi4vi6$2hn$2@mouse.otenet.gr...
And can we please stop this rubbish dead?
Only the Queen & Prince Phillip receive the Civil List, I believe - about
£40 million? Peanuts in terms of national budgets.
Out of which Gawd knows what in terms of staff, etc. is paid, plus incomes
given to some lesser Royals.
Some 5 times that is returned annually to the state from the Crown Estates,
let alone income now gained from previous Royal estates now owned by the
state.
There is no fact whatsoever in such financial attacks
End of story?
Surreyman
news:fi4vi6$2hn$2@mouse.otenet.gr...
Robert Peffers wrote:
"Toby" <tstanbrook@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:72f8b7d8-1413-4af2-b239-539eba32b0e8@g30g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
First, in regards to the Crown Estate, it has been highlighted in the
press by royal servants that the UK government should return the Crown
Estate revenues if the civil list payments are stopped. The response
was that historically, the Crown Estate was used toprovide a revenue
to the monarch for effective government of the kingdom ie. building
roads, defence, etc. Now, that under Western Democracy, the government
is no longer the monarch, the monarch has no entitlement to the Crown
Estate revenues at all.
Although I applaud the fact that the royals pay income tax, it seems
that this is only on civil list payments received. They still seem to
be tax exempt on "personal income". Can someone correct me on this? I
don't think that this is fair. On the other hand, I don't have strong
objections to the monarch's exemption from inheritance tax. Royal
properties and privately owned lands should be passed on; after all,
they can hardly sell them off, can they?
On the unrelated issue of teaching creationism, I believe that it can
(and maybe should) be taught in state schools but in Religion lessons.
In Sciene lessons, there should only be a brief reference to it as ONE
of the theories of life.
Let us be blunt about this subject.
The royal lands were taken by dint of military power over others. In
effect they were stolen.
Royals were never elected but took what they wanted at the expense of
others.
Charles II was elected as was William of Orange and his wife, Mary.
Royals didn't "take what they wanted", as such. William the Conqueror
conquered England, hence his monicker. Everything, but everything in
England belonged to him. Hence Domesday Book. Slowly, his descendants
began to give it to the nation.
What right do they now have to hold on to what they stole from the
others in the country?
I'm not suggesting taking their lands away from them or sending them to
the guillotine. Just stopping them getting anything else from the public
purse.
You are a bitter, bitter old man.
After that it would be up to them to make the most of the assets they
already have.
Just think of this, Elizabeth was crowned in 1953 and she has carried
out her, "Royal Duty", ever since. Now every gig she does she is given
some kind of token.
She holds these gifts for the nation. They do not constitute part of her
personal wealth.
And can we please stop this rubbish dead?
Only the Queen & Prince Phillip receive the Civil List, I believe - about
£40 million? Peanuts in terms of national budgets.
Out of which Gawd knows what in terms of staff, etc. is paid, plus incomes
given to some lesser Royals.
Some 5 times that is returned annually to the state from the Crown Estates,
let alone income now gained from previous Royal estates now owned by the
state.
There is no fact whatsoever in such financial attacks
End of story?
Surreyman
-
a.spencer3
Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T
"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:JcydnWbzrucCc9janZ2dnUVZ8qijnZ2d@bt.com...
Well, this is a History group, not soc.rabid.anti.royals
Surreyman
news:JcydnWbzrucCc9janZ2dnUVZ8qijnZ2d@bt.com...
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:9Jj1j.42091$T8.14391@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
Robert Peffers wrote:
"Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmucci@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:fOSdnRXcepWpNtnanZ2dnUVZ_o-mnZ2d@rcn.net...
his name isn't george.
It isn't Windsor either, but, as monarch, he can choose whatever name
he likes.
After all there was never a Queen Elizabeth I of the UK but the
present incumbent called herself, Elizabeth II.
Quiz time: which king was the third of that name of England, the second
of
Scotland, and the first of Ireland?
--
John Briggs
Who bloody cares?
Well, this is a History group, not soc.rabid.anti.royals
Surreyman
-
Renia
Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T
a.spencer3 wrote:
Not only that, but it is a question actually on topic for all the groups
it has been cross-posted to:
alt.history.british
alt.talk.royalty
soc.culture.scottish
soc.genealogy.medieval
soc.history.medieval
"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:JcydnWbzrucCc9janZ2dnUVZ8qijnZ2d@bt.com...
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:9Jj1j.42091$T8.14391@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
Robert Peffers wrote:
"Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmucci@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:fOSdnRXcepWpNtnanZ2dnUVZ_o-mnZ2d@rcn.net...
his name isn't george.
It isn't Windsor either, but, as monarch, he can choose whatever name
he likes.
After all there was never a Queen Elizabeth I of the UK but the
present incumbent called herself, Elizabeth II.
Quiz time: which king was the third of that name of England, the second
of
Scotland, and the first of Ireland?
--
John Briggs
Who bloody cares?
Well, this is a History group, not soc.rabid.anti.royals
Not only that, but it is a question actually on topic for all the groups
it has been cross-posted to:
alt.history.british
alt.talk.royalty
soc.culture.scottish
soc.genealogy.medieval
soc.history.medieval
-
Gjest
Re: What the hell with that old style calendar ???
In a message dated 23/11/2007 10:00:27 GMT Standard Time,
renia@DELETEotenet.gr writes:
Leap year didn't exist prior to 1752. The reason for having leap years,
is that having an extra day (Feb 29th) every four years, helps to adjust
the timing of clocks, which are or were out by a few seconds, making the
main calendar as reasonably accurate every four-year cycle. (Not sure
I've explained that properly!) So, prior to the adoption of the new
calendar, the last day of February would have been the 28th Feb, not the
29th.
I think leap years were around in the Julian Calendar. (There is a 29 Feb
1664 (New Calendar for the year, i.e. 1663/4) in Pepys' diaries). What
happened in the Gregorian Calendar was the missing out of leap years at century ends
if they did not divide by 400. Thus 1600 & 2000 are leap years, but not
1500, 1700, 1800 and 1900. Under this system an average year becomes 365.2425
days, close enough to the actual figure of 365.2422 to remain correct for
several thousand years
Adrian
renia@DELETEotenet.gr writes:
Leap year didn't exist prior to 1752. The reason for having leap years,
is that having an extra day (Feb 29th) every four years, helps to adjust
the timing of clocks, which are or were out by a few seconds, making the
main calendar as reasonably accurate every four-year cycle. (Not sure
I've explained that properly!) So, prior to the adoption of the new
calendar, the last day of February would have been the 28th Feb, not the
29th.
I think leap years were around in the Julian Calendar. (There is a 29 Feb
1664 (New Calendar for the year, i.e. 1663/4) in Pepys' diaries). What
happened in the Gregorian Calendar was the missing out of leap years at century ends
if they did not divide by 400. Thus 1600 & 2000 are leap years, but not
1500, 1700, 1800 and 1900. Under this system an average year becomes 365.2425
days, close enough to the actual figure of 365.2422 to remain correct for
several thousand years
Adrian
-
John Cartmell
Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T
In article <VzA1j.42091$9Y3.40244@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>,
a.spencer3 <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote:
[Snip]
[Snip]
[Snip]
Lots of facts. Most correct. Lots of opinion.
No.
It is acceptable to question why the descendants of brigands and bastards
should have rights beyond anyone else simply because their ancestors were
willing to be more murderously nasty than anyone else. The answer is that they
have those rights because Parliament (for the people) has freely given them
that right.
It is acceptable to regularly question that grant and to bring the 'Royals'
back down to Earth. They reign at our pleasure because we choose them above
Presidents; should they start to believe their own propaganda at being chosen
by God - or being special in any other way - then it's time to call them in
for a career interview and to reconsider their working conditions and side
benefits.
--
John Cartmell john@finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 or 0161 969 9820
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 http://www.qercus.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing
a.spencer3 <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote:
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fi4vi6$2hn$2@mouse.otenet.gr...
Robert Peffers wrote:
"Toby" <tstanbrook@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:72f8b7d8-1413-4af2-b239-539eba32b0e8@g30g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
First, in regards to the Crown Estate, it has been highlighted in the
press by royal servants that the UK government should return the Crown
Estate revenues if the civil list payments are stopped. The response
was that historically, the Crown Estate was used toprovide a revenue
to the monarch for effective government of the kingdom ie. building
roads, defence, etc.
[Snip]
Let us be blunt about this subject.
The royal lands were taken by dint of military power over others. In
effect they were stolen.
[Snip]
Just think of this, Elizabeth was crowned in 1953 and she has carried
out her, "Royal Duty", ever since. Now every gig she does she is given
some kind of token.
She holds these gifts for the nation. They do not constitute part of her
personal wealth.
And can we please stop this rubbish dead?
[Snip]
There is no fact whatsoever in such financial attacks
Lots of facts. Most correct. Lots of opinion.
End of story?
No.
It is acceptable to question why the descendants of brigands and bastards
should have rights beyond anyone else simply because their ancestors were
willing to be more murderously nasty than anyone else. The answer is that they
have those rights because Parliament (for the people) has freely given them
that right.
It is acceptable to regularly question that grant and to bring the 'Royals'
back down to Earth. They reign at our pleasure because we choose them above
Presidents; should they start to believe their own propaganda at being chosen
by God - or being special in any other way - then it's time to call them in
for a career interview and to reconsider their working conditions and side
benefits.
--
John Cartmell john@finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 or 0161 969 9820
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 http://www.qercus.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing
-
John Cartmell
Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T
In article <fi6m6f$l7n$1@mouse.otenet.gr>,
Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
Is that a first?
--
John Cartmell john@finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 or 0161 969 9820
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 http://www.qercus.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing
Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
Not only that, but it is a question actually on topic for all the groups
it has been cross-posted to:
alt.history.british
alt.talk.royalty
soc.culture.scottish
soc.genealogy.medieval
soc.history.medieval
Is that a first?
--
John Cartmell john@finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 or 0161 969 9820
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 http://www.qercus.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing
-
Leticia Cluff
Re: What the hell with that old style calendar ???
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 09:19:45 EST, ADRIANCHANNING02@aol.com wrote:
Adding an extra day to February every four years was one of Julius
Caesar's calendar reforms.
Something that has always struck me as curious about leap years is
that the added (intercalary) day in February is not actually the 29th
(as I believed for the first three decades of my life) but is inserted
after the 23rd, so that the 24th is renumbered as the 25th, and so on.
But who am I to argue with Censorinus?
Tish
In a message dated 23/11/2007 10:00:27 GMT Standard Time,
renia@DELETEotenet.gr writes:
Leap year didn't exist prior to 1752. The reason for having leap years,
is that having an extra day (Feb 29th) every four years, helps to adjust
the timing of clocks, which are or were out by a few seconds, making the
main calendar as reasonably accurate every four-year cycle. (Not sure
I've explained that properly!) So, prior to the adoption of the new
calendar, the last day of February would have been the 28th Feb, not the
29th.
I think leap years were around in the Julian Calendar.
Adding an extra day to February every four years was one of Julius
Caesar's calendar reforms.
(There is a 29 Feb
1664 (New Calendar for the year, i.e. 1663/4) in Pepys' diaries). What
happened in the Gregorian Calendar was the missing out of leap years at century ends
if they did not divide by 400. Thus 1600 & 2000 are leap years, but not
1500, 1700, 1800 and 1900. Under this system an average year becomes 365.2425
days, close enough to the actual figure of 365.2422 to remain correct for
several thousand years
Something that has always struck me as curious about leap years is
that the added (intercalary) day in February is not actually the 29th
(as I believed for the first three decades of my life) but is inserted
after the 23rd, so that the 24th is renumbered as the 25th, and so on.
But who am I to argue with Censorinus?
Tish
-
Gjest
Re: Sir John Godard
In a message dated 22/11/2007 01:50:19 GMT Standard Time,
WatsonJohnM@gmail.com writes:
<SNIP>
So, Sir John Godard was either of an old Yorkshire family or an old
Norfolk family.
Does anyone have any evidence on which statement might be true?
Regards,
John
==============================
Don't know if the following is of any use:
Goddard, Godard, Godart: Godardus de Clakesbi c 1160-6 DC (L); Robert
'God(d)ard 1208 Cur (Ha), Wlfrich Godard 1221 Ely A (Nf); Symon Godhard 1299 LLB C.
Old Fr Godard, Old G Gotahard, Godhard 'god-hard'.
DC = F M Stenton, Documents illustrative of the Social and Economic History
of the Danelaw, London 1920
(L) = Lincolnshire
Cur = Curia Regis Rolls (Pipe Roll Soc. 14 1891)
(Ha) = Hampshire
Ely A = British Museum, Cotton Tiberius B ii
(Nf) = Norfolk
LLB = calendar of the Letter Books of the city of London 11 vols, Lodnon
1899-1912
C = Cambridgeshire
Adrian
WatsonJohnM@gmail.com writes:
<SNIP>
So, Sir John Godard was either of an old Yorkshire family or an old
Norfolk family.
Does anyone have any evidence on which statement might be true?
Regards,
John
==============================
Don't know if the following is of any use:
From Oxford 'A Dictionary of English Surnames" (1997)
Goddard, Godard, Godart: Godardus de Clakesbi c 1160-6 DC (L); Robert
'God(d)ard 1208 Cur (Ha), Wlfrich Godard 1221 Ely A (Nf); Symon Godhard 1299 LLB C.
Old Fr Godard, Old G Gotahard, Godhard 'god-hard'.
DC = F M Stenton, Documents illustrative of the Social and Economic History
of the Danelaw, London 1920
(L) = Lincolnshire
Cur = Curia Regis Rolls (Pipe Roll Soc. 14 1891)
(Ha) = Hampshire
Ely A = British Museum, Cotton Tiberius B ii
(Nf) = Norfolk
LLB = calendar of the Letter Books of the city of London 11 vols, Lodnon
1899-1912
C = Cambridgeshire
Adrian